Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

[reyfer]

Microsoft has begun patching files on Windows XP and Vista without users' knowledge, even when the users have turned off auto-updates.

The problem I see here is, even if these updates were harmless, the fact that they can do it without your knowledge or consent, even if you disabled auto-updates, makes me wonder what else can they do without your knowledge or consent? Are your personal files really "personal"?

[Masabi]

That sucks, I hope they're not patching mine: I don't want to waste my bandwidth on their stupid patches.

[RatBastich]

That article says that these stealth patches aren't harmful, but I don't like the way this done by those microsoft bastards.

[chokkan 2]

I think I'm gonna put up more firewalls to block those asshole .... hope it works

[reyfer]

Think about this: now that this has surfaced, how long will it be before some evil hacker finds out how they do it, and use it for other purposes? I think MS, by doing this and thus exposing a "backdoor" (because that's what this is, they are entering your system without your consent), has just shot itself on the foot.

[ferrar1]

This happens to all previous MS OS. Even if your computer is idle doing nothing, suddenly the system resources will spike up and you know something's happening.

[frblckstr1]

Think about this: now that this has surfaced, how long will it be before some evil hacker finds out how they do it, and use it for other purposes? I think MS, by doing this and thus exposing a "backdoor" (because that's what this is, they are entering your system without your consent), has just shot itself on the foot.

Nothing new move along...

The nothing new part: WPA (or what ever 'Windows Activation' for XP is called) updates itself also before it starts to check if your license key is still valid.

The talk here is about WU (windows Update) that is a special set of programs that have a different update cycle/authorisation (if you use WSUS they are in a special 'self update' category)

Any program that 'phones home' can also update itself (although Vista will make that a bit more difficult) without the user knowing.
And a lot of freeware/shareware program will do that also by default these days.

And yes any 'update' can be 'harmfull' because it could interfere with something else on your system, also nothing new really.

And about evil hackers trying to intercept: they already try by updating your hosts file to point to a different place for windowsupdate (sinds the beginning of automatic updates) or for your virus scanner.
Its still easier to have the user click a eMail link then intercepting the update stream...

[kwanleekwan]

How come they do it in this way!

[frblckstr1]

How come they do it in this way!

Read this: long msnews group link

Its like any other program that needs information to do its work correctly.

[reyfer]

@frblckstr1:

I don't know your background on computers and operating systems, but I have been working with computers for 20 years, I have used Windows in all its variants, I have used FreeBSD, I have used OS2, I have used Mac OS, and I have been using Linux for the last four years, and I don't remember any time where Mac, OS2, FreeBSD or Linux programs updated anything without letting me know first. In Linux even the most basic security updates ask for your permission to run. The only way they run automatically is if you set the permissions for it to do so. And even then, they let you know what is happening. The problem here is, not only does this update happen without your permission, it happens without letting you know, and it happens even if you told the OS not to look for updates. And given the number of hackers out there aiming at windows, a "feature" like this is worrisome for people like me who like to have total control about what goes on with our systems. Thank God I use Linux exclusively on my home rigs (3 of them, using Fedora, Debian and Kubuntu respectively), and I've been Windows free for a year and a half now.

[frblckstr1]

I don't know your background on computers and operating systems, but I have been working with computers for 20 years, I have used Windows in all its variants, I have used FreeBSD, I have used OS2, I have used Mac OS, and I have been using Linux for the last four years, and I don't remember any time where Mac, OS2, FreeBSD or Linux programs updated anything without letting me know first.

I have been working as a (system- web-) programmer my whole working live now, plus studied computers science (at what is called 'university level' in america I think) to become a 'software engineer' so I do have some background in computers
I have used Unix/Xenix/OS2 also (set them up from scratch and or programmed for them).

The problem here is, not only does this update happen without your permission, it happens without letting you know, and it happens even if you told the OS not to look for updates. And given the number of hackers out there aiming at windows, a "feature" like this is worrisome for people like me who like to have total control about what goes on with our systems. Thank God I use Linux exclusively on my home rigs (3 of them, using Fedora, Debian and Kubuntu respectively), and I've been Windows free for a year and a half now.

If you read the article correctly, you will notice that the eventlog actually contains entries stating that the user connected to the windows update service and that it updated itself just a few seconds after that. Nothing 'hidden' and as stated as by design and as documented (I knew about this additional feature already for some years): WU updates ifself via a seperate authorisation.
In his case, because al other automatic updates where disabled, it *only* updated because the user initiated a connect to windows update and it *only* updated itself because that was the only authorisation it had.
Like I said WSUS (which I use) and domain controlled computers have the option to also disable that if you wanted.

So nothing 'stealth' going on, just somebody forgot the read the documentation and making a big fush about it that he discovered it 6 (or was it 8?) years late.

And don't talk to me about 'Linux' not updating itself, a lot of distributions now have a 'phone home' feature equal to windows update. Haven't checked lately but I know of several distrubutions I tried that immediatly after install offered me either to check for updates, or already notified me of them.

Nothing against *nix but I do have something against hipe.

[reyfer]

I'm sorry you misunderstood what I said, but having a feature TELLING you that updates are available, and updating WITHOUT telling you are different things, in my opinion. I never said Linux doesn't check for updates, I said it will NEVER install WITHOUT MY PERMISSION. See how different those two things are? I'll quote myself to make the point clearer:

@frblckstr1:

I don't know your background on computers and operating systems, but I have been working with computers for 20 years, I have used Windows in all its variants, I have used FreeBSD, I have used OS2, I have used Mac OS, and I have been using Linux for the last four years, and I don't remember any time where Mac, OS2, FreeBSD or Linux programs updated anything without letting me know first. In Linux even the most basic security updates ask for your permission to run. The only way they run automatically is if you set the permissions for it to do so. And even then, they let you know what is happening.

So it is not hipe. Just telling what I have personally seen and experienced in 20 years of computer use, by the way I assemble and repair PCs as a hobby, and I install and set up OS, I am an MCSE professional (never worth the effort, did it on a dare), and also have my LPI (Linux Professional Institute) certification. Glad to know someone else is certified on this forum 

[frblckstr1]

*nix may not update itself, but some are still 'phoning home', which to me is about as bad as one component updating itself. And 'asking for permission to update'...

The 'self update'/automatic updates are for the 99% of other users who do not want to know what is happening.
And if they get a 'something ready for you' popup/baloon/whatever (on MS or *nix) they will simply click 'ok' to get rid of it. Do you actually check what updates you get and selectively answers yes/no? (btw I do with WSUS although I have setup a lot of defaults)
Until users get educated (or a 'drivers license' is required for the internet) automatic updates is about the only thing to do really, I'll bet you that when *nix gets above 50% of the desktop market everybody will want to have automatic updates activated except for the select few.

Bashing Microsoft is easy (hey I do not like them at times, certainly not as a programmer) but I am not going to run *nix and miss 90% of the programs/hardware I use. UMPC with touchscreen under *nix anyone?, I said *with* touchscreen! Oh, and do remember the hardware is there because there are enough *windows* users to want it, I have not seen consumer hardware inovated because it is used by *nix users.
(exception is maybe the iPhone but that is to closed a system still)

Until *nix groupies get of there lazy backs and develop some more drivers I will be running MS*something so I can do what I want to do.
I do not want to remember the number of times I installed XP to see what hardware there is in the system (and the parameters used) and only then I could fire-up a Linux distro and answer all those questions about hardware it could not detect correctly.

Back to the origional problem: the article writer simply didn't know what he was doing, making his tandrum just something to about.

End of line.

[reyfer]

Sorry, is it something personal against me? If that's the case, please PM me. Otherwise, your MS bias has nothing to do with the thread. You like Windows, go ahead and use it, it is your choice and it may be great for your job, but don't ask me to not bash Windows while you bash Linux.

And this part

the article writer simply didn't know what he was doing, making his tandrum just something to   about

Did you check who the writer was?

Scott Dunn is associate editor of the Windows Secrets Newsletter. He is also a contributing editor of PC World Magazine, where he has written a monthly column since 1992, and co-author of  101 Windows Tips & Tricks (Peachpit) with Jesse Berst and Charles Bermant.

And about having to check for system components on Windows to be able to install Linux....well, I think the last time you tried Linux was a LONG time ago. Today every modern Linux distro (Debian, Red Hat, Ubuntu, Mandriva) have excellent hardware detection, and they don't ask you about those things. And some of them (Ubuntu, Mandriva, Knoppix) even come as Live CDs or DVDs, so you can TRY it before installing, to check for compatibility. Check http://distrowatch.com/ from time to time, you'll see how much the linux community has evolved. 

About this one

UMPC with touchscreen under *nix anyone?, I said *with* touchscreen!

http://www.pocketables.net/2007/02/new_h9_umpc_run.html
http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/16/intels-mid-umpcs-so-long-xp-vista-hello-linux/
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sozonko/asus_r2h_howto/

Peace

[frblckstr1]

sigh, why do fanboys always skip the part where you agree with them

[Masabi]

THE ONLY WAY TO AVOID IT IS UNPLUG YOUR INTERNET AND NEVER COME BACKKKKKK~ 

[Asmodai]

ZOMG they updated Windows Update! The tyranny! The tyranny!

I'm not a techie. I leave Automatic Updates on for Windows Update and AVG and a few other programs. It saves me the hassle of remembering to search for them myself.

Really the only people this really affects are the uber-paranoid, and most of them are too busy polishing their guns in their secluded Oregon cabins to check what their computers are doing.

[BuRn]

if you aren't happy, switch to linux/mac and never go back to using windows, if not, there's not point complaining really...

[Yuna]

I don't like this idea of microsoft making changes on my system without my permission but we should try to understand that just like some programs update themselves in order to prevent piracy microsoft has the right to do it as well.

What we could do, as was previously mentioned here, is get a good firewall and not allowing windows to connect.

I personally don't let the auto updates turned on becauses it uses a good portion of the system when the update starts. Imagine if you're playing a game, watching a movie or whatever and suddenly your computer becames all laggy ... I don't like it either, but we all know that most computers we use in our houses have an UNofficil copy of windows.

I was talking to a friend of mine the other day about the messages that appeared on the unoriginal copies of Windows XP: "You probably have been victim of software counterfeit" (something like it)
We were laughing and he was saying: "Yeah, how naive am I ?"

[Asmodai]

I don't like it either, but we all know that most computers we use in our houses have an UNofficil copy of windows.

Uh, speak for yourself?

When buying a $2200 computer, the $100 for a legit copy of Windows XP wasn't that big a deal. It's the cost of two games, and I use it a lot more than any two games I own.