Discussion in 'polls' started by ams963, Jun 10, 2012.
Saying the killswitch is a backdoor is like saying windows update is a backdoor.
i thought it was
Very good points. Windows Update is configurable by the user; in fact, it can be shutdown entirely... unless Microsoft already has more backdoors...
Like you, I haven't heard of anything from Microsoft saying it will be possible to shutdown this killswitch thing.
So, Hungry Man, saying...
... is not really accurate, is it?
The vector to "kill" and the vector "to update" Metro apps is the same.
You were talking about increasing exposure of the OS to hackers that this feature would bring - and that's not the case.
About turning it off, I doubt Microsoft will let people turn off the "kill switch" for malware infected Metro apps. Just like Apple, Google and Amazon don't let people turn off the kill switches in the respective Operating Systems as well.
Now did you know that?
How do you know that? I don't know the answer either; only time will tell. I do hope, for the sake of millions of users, it won't bring no additional evil to them.
Exactly my point. As I pointed out, there's no info that it will be possible to turn it off.
Anyway, you like it... use it.
I'm already using Windows 8 RP.
That "kill switch" is, in fact, a bonus safety feature of the Windows Store.
While others taking the same approach provides some cover for Microsoft, it doesn't mean that the approach is inherently legitimate or one which is friendly to and respectful of users. Often it is the case that another major player adopting an approach makes things considerably worse for users because it becomes that much more difficult to avoid the approach in the marketplace.
Such a feature, like update support, has the potential to be used for good. The potential positive uses are, of course, what will be explicitly presented, emphasized, and focused on. Sales 101. However, a wise person will also consider the potential negative uses and want to maintain the ability to control what software runs on their devices.
Do you agree, in principle, that users should have the ability to control this killswitch feature? By that I mean enable it, disable it, configure it so that they are prompted/asked prior to it removing software on their device.
lol Android's entirely open you can do whatever you want. Same with ChromeOS. I can turn anything I like off.
And as with any feature it provides attack surface but I doubt it'll be exploited.
Yes I agree with that.
Don't really like the new layout and lack of start menu in windows 8. I'm happy with windows 7, i see no need to upgrade.
How "accessible" is the ability to turn off or otherwise configure updating and/or "killswitching" on such platforms? For reference, I think there is an important difference between 1) first run prompting users to select their preferences, 2) users having to subsequently go into settings to adjust things, 3) users having to add some kind of addon to add the configurability, 4) users having to build and load their own image from open source in order to add the configurability.
I'm glad we've established some common ground.
I have no idea. Tons of phones have one-click-root at this point so it's a simple matter to just do that and then disable/ remove anything you like. You can go so far as to run a custom rom, which is just a few more 'taps' and that's it.
With ChromeOS it's a matter of flipping a switch and you've got full access to the device.
At first no, After using it for a few weeks I absolutely do. I really think it will not be as bad as you think for desktop users. I am a desktop user and I find it easy to navigate with good ole mouse and keyboard.
The start menu being gone is a relief I think now it was just in the way.
I use Windows 7 as my default OS for every day use of course and I love it very much but I will be getting a new PC with Windows 8 this winter.
I have not tried it yet although I was impressed with consumer preview but for now stable windows 7 is good for me.
I was just thinking... This is a pretty long preview. Maybe they are trying to get me hooked and then I will have to buy it.
I don't really like the newer interfaces. But I do like some of the features and stability.
I won't be purchasing any product for my "personal computer" that has a killswitch. Phones or pads or whatever, who cares I guess, they are throw away and supposed to be a comm device anyway. But for my "personal computer", I have no desire for anyone having access to it, but me.
Lets get this straight. I turn off windows update. I turn off anything that has someone else deciding what will happen. Maybe it is the product of living in the USA, but I have a severe dislike for anyone deciding what is best for me. And that goes especially for anything like this "killswitch".
My pc is mine. It is my responsibility to keep it safe, to keep my data safe. If I can't, then I should not be either using a computer, should not be using the internet, or should not be storing sensitive data that matters on my computer.
Holding ones hand is fine if it is desired. Some of us are now "big boys" and can handle our own affairs thank you very much. I don't appreciate the idiots of the world, too lazy to learn a thing or two, making the industry force-feed me chicken**it crap like this. It is absurd and ridiculous, for a "personal computer".
For a kiosk, or a corporate computer, sounds like a great thing to have. I could see a lot of good uses in such a circumstance.
way to go Sully, my thoughts exactly.
I really couldn't disagree more.
An open "port" into your machine is an open port. Any open port may be abused. Without a method to turn it off, it is nothing more than a liability in my book. But lets take it all in context. It is a liability if I have something to lose, such as data or paid for applications, etc.
I fail to see the compelling reason to keep my data on a machine that would have such a "potential" hole.
I have been thinking more and more about ending my gaming and switching over to unix flavors.
I don't need the lackadaisical nature of others dictating how I experience life. You can if you like
I don't think it's a listening service. If it is that's different. But Windows Update isn't, is it?
The Ubuntu software center is capable of the same thing by the way. Apt-get can remove dependencies as well.
I think the only legal solution to disable the "killswitch" will be to not purchase Metro apps from Windows Store. Remember, the "killswitch" is a feature of the Windows Store, valid only for Metro apps purchased there. It's not a feature of Windows 8 per se.
If you don't like Metro and won't like it in the future, then you probably won't purchase Metro apps from Windows Store.
FWIW, I took Sully's putting the first instance of port in double quotes as an indication that the usage referred to something different and broader. Implementation details... including how lower level, intermediary communications paths are handled... are most certainly important. At a higher level though, what matters is whether a remote entity can in some way communicate with and cause some component on our computer to kill or otherwise change something in a undesirable way from the user's point of view. Put another way, we don't for example overlook and tolerate exploits simply because they are the consequence of a purely voluntary and explicit user initiated HTTP GET over a TCP connection opened by the user's computer.
I'd like to read a detailed description of how the killswitch mechanism is implemented and where exactly the functionality exists. Has Microsoft disclosed such details somewhere? For example, killswitch type functionality could theoretically be built into each and every Windows Store distributed app or it could be built into Windows 8 and called upon by the Windows and/or app updating mechanism or it could simply be a "update to a null app" store-triggered type operation.
We should consider the possibility (near certainty, IMO) that Microsoft will continue to evolve and move forward with a Windows Store based ecosystem and software distribution/updating model. Also, that it will become a popular means for others to distribute their software programs. Metro apps at first of course, but I would assume desktop apps eventually as well. Frankly, I think the idea of being able to thoroughly avoid Windows Store distributed apps and Microsoft killswitching in the future is a bit of a pipe dream. Clearly, I need to get back into the Matrix.
I couldn't find other details about how this will work from any source.
My personal bet is that it will be closely related to the auto-updating mechanism of Metro apps.
Just to make my position about this clear. I like to have control over my system and I would certainly appreciate to have the possibility to disable any remote control of purchased Metro apps.
However (and this is a big however), I always trusted in Microsoft's capabilities in the sorting of whatever needs to be fixed/removed/added/etc. Otherwise I would disable the Windows/Microsoft Update component, any component that "calls home" - under the reason of not trusting Microsoft. But this would be insane or a least a very partial fix! Why? because I'm already trusting in their entire OS! Millions and millions of lines of code! lol. So, if I didn't trust Microsoft, I would better simply not use their products.
I have to agree with you SPP.. If one doesn't trust MS, then one shouldn't even be running their OS in the first place.
Separate names with a comma.