MS updating silently in XP and Vista

Discussion in 'other security issues & news' started by innerpeace, Sep 12, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. innerpeace

    innerpeace Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Posts:
    2,095
    Location:
    Mountaineer Country
    I'm not sure what to make of this. It could be more FUD, but then again MS never ceases to amaze me. More details should be available tomorrow.

    http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9036058
     
  2. 19monty64

    19monty64 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Posts:
    1,302
    Location:
    Nunya, BZ
    Keep us posted! (I like reading the comments added)
     
  3. innerpeace

    innerpeace Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Posts:
    2,095
    Location:
    Mountaineer Country
    http://www.windowssecrets.com/2007/09/13/01-Microsoft-updates-Windows-without-users-consent

    The last sentence sums it up. "Why is Microsoft operating in this way?" Because they can. I checked the 9 files on my XP machine and all of them showed as modified July 30th. They are all version 7.0.6000.381 mentioned in the link. I couldn't find anything in event viewer other than my install of July and Aug. patches which I finally installed Sept. 6th. It would be interesting if someone here has the proof in their event viewer as mentioned in the article.
     
  4. 19monty64

    19monty64 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Posts:
    1,302
    Location:
    Nunya, BZ
    I read a couple articles about this today, and the general gist that I got is that MS is only updating their files and not the users files. (But what about notifying the users? Don't have to-read the EULA!) Since there is nothing malicious about the updated-files, I find some users comments that I read laughable. Come on.... we don't own our copy of Windows! I can just imagine the uproar in the near future when the forced-update to LiveMessenger 8.1 (or MSN-mess upgrades for older OS'es) comes up!
     
  5. innerpeace

    innerpeace Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Posts:
    2,095
    Location:
    Mountaineer Country
    Malicious or not, it's still a computer owned by a user. That user should have the right to be notified of anything installed to their system. Everyone makes mistakes (even Microsoft). What if one of the 'updates' caused a terminal error? How would the user troubleshoot it? No doubt Microsoft would come out with a paid product to image or restore in such situations.

    I'm personally not comfortable with anything sneaking its way onto to my computer. If we accept this procedure, then what's the next thing they will try? What if other companies do the same thing? Shall we just hand over control of our computers to people who know what's best for all of us?

    innerpeace
     
  6. ccsito

    ccsito Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Posts:
    1,579
    Location:
    Nation's Capital
    To be honest with you, I don't like the constant pop ups that I get about a "hotfix" is available and needs to be installed. MS feels that they need to update ALL users of their software. I always wondered what was actually in all of these hotfixes. For hardware and software, it seems that things don't stay constant and need to be changing constantly. I guess that is why tech firms rack up so much $$$.:cautious:
     
  7. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    57,729
    Location:
    Texas
    How Windows Update Keeps Itself Up-to-Date
    Microsoft
     
  8. zapjb

    zapjb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Posts:
    3,518
    Location:
    USA - Back in a real State in time for a real Pres
    Is this ok enough?
     
  9. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,779
    This quote from the MS article seems to contradict what was claimed originally above:

    "Before closing, I would like to address another misconception that I have seen publically reported. WU does not automatically update itself when Automatic Updates is turned off, this only happens when the customer is using WU to automatically install upgrades or to be notified of updates."
     
  10. 19monty64

    19monty64 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Posts:
    1,302
    Location:
    Nunya, BZ
    I, too, have the .381's that installed while AutoUpdates was shut-off. But as stated, "In fact, WU has auto-updated itself many times in the past." With AU shut-off, one can opt-out of the security-fixes, but WU is still going to phone home to see if "it" needs to be updated. Don't get me wrong, I'm not sticking up for MS. I've known for a while about WU "having a mind of it's own", and have just grown accustomed to it. Even if MS did notify us of everything they did with our computers (they tend to talk down to the user) I would zone them out anyway! .....trust in the devil you know!
     
  11. 19monty64

    19monty64 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Posts:
    1,302
    Location:
    Nunya, BZ
    WU does update itself when Automatic Update is shut off. WU updated on my pc on Aug.30....I didn't turn AU on until Sep.10.
     
  12. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,779
    Interesting.... so MS is lying?

    Disabling the service would probably take care of it then....
     
  13. innerpeace

    innerpeace Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Posts:
    2,095
    Location:
    Mountaineer Country
    Hi monty, I figured you weren't sticking up for MS. I was just trying to prove a few points. I wasn't trying to direct anything towards you. These type of discussions are a bit fun :). Thanks for confirming that the updates took place on your machine.

    We spend a lot of time trying to control what is going into and out of our computers. We also try to keep our machines running well and that becomes almost impossible when secret changes are being made without us knowing.

    One of the replies in the link that Ronjor posted said we shouldn't expect Microsoft to be infallible. I agree! That is why I want control. At least that way I can blame myself rather than MS. I would say the same thing about any company and their updates. I like to "feel things out" before I install a new and improved app. This is my machine and if anyone is going to screw it up, it's going to be me. ;) :p
     
  14. 19monty64

    19monty64 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Posts:
    1,302
    Location:
    Nunya, BZ
    I agree! When a security company updates without notification, let's say a firewall app., and that update is buggy, well us users would be screaming-mad! Most antivirus' notify of every def.update and most of us find it irratating! But MS has its share of fan-haters that jump at the first opportunity to cut them down. There is also the skeptics that just don't want the uninvited intrusions, especially where MS is concerned. WGA has caused a great deal of inconvenience for its customers, and their response to the faux-pas is usually quite flippant, sometimes blaming the user or a 3rd-party software company for the incompatability. I've tried out a few other OS'es and live-cd's, and until something better than XP comes out, I'll stick with XP! Better the devil you know!!!
     
  15. 19monty64

    19monty64 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Posts:
    1,302
    Location:
    Nunya, BZ
    I agree....but.....
    .....some of the comments on the blog-pages are way out in left-field, like threats of civil-suits for damages, pain & suffering, and charging MS for the time they spent recovering from the "MS-trojan." My luck, I'd sue MS and they'd refund my $$$ for XP and make me use one of their competitor's OS'es. (nooooooooooo!!!)
     
  16. innerpeace

    innerpeace Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Posts:
    2,095
    Location:
    Mountaineer Country
    It would take a huge number of people complaining/suing in order for MS to change their ways. I don't see this happening. I'm perfectly happy with XP for now and plan on getting to know linux soon. I'm just not comfortable being treated as the criminal and being violated in the name of greed.

    If MS did refund your money, it would be pro-rated and by the time litigation was over, XPs life cycle would be near its end. :ouch:
     
  17. 19monty64

    19monty64 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Posts:
    1,302
    Location:
    Nunya, BZ
  18. Mrkvonic

    Mrkvonic Linux Systems Expert

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Posts:
    8,695
    Hello,
    I have not (yet) noticed anything out of ordinary - auto updated off.
    Besides, you have the firewall to control stuff... What do your firewalls tell you? Do you allow svchost.exe or iexplore.exe to connect always? I don't.
    Mrk
     
  19. Togg

    Togg Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Posts:
    177
    I don't know if my experience was untypical but I was actually offered updates to the Update files on Tuesday (with the implied threat that, if I declined, the whole process would terminate).

    I graciously accepted the offer and then was able to run a 'Custom' update and decline the DST and Malware Removal updates (nothing else applied to me).

    I am using XP Home and used Firefox with the IE Tab to access the Updates site.
     
  20. innerpeace

    innerpeace Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Posts:
    2,095
    Location:
    Mountaineer Country
    Hi Mrk, unfortunately firewalls are my weakness. I have explorer.exe blocked, but I have 3 svchost rules. Under program access, I didn't have an ie rule, but I had an out rule under rules. I'm glad you mentioned this, because I deleted that one.

    I don't think the 'silent' update happened on my machine. The updated files may have been installed by me checking for updates manually a month ago and then not installing them. I'm just a little disturbed about self installing software. I like to manually update everything.
     
  21. 19monty64

    19monty64 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Posts:
    1,302
    Location:
    Nunya, BZ
    No, I don't use a firewall.
    Yes, I got the silent updates.
    Yes, I chose not to block them.
     
  22. the Tester

    the Tester Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Posts:
    2,854
    Location:
    The Gateway to the Blue Hills,WI.
    I don't think that I had the silent update.
    I'm on dialup and I shut down every day.

    This story doesn't surprise me.I don't doubt that they do it and it's not right to bypass the user.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.