Simplify your laptop buying
Spyware, viruses, & security : Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
- 9/13/07 8:55 AM
Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
by Marianna Schmudlach - 9/13/07 8:55 AM
By Scott Dunn
Microsoft has begun patching files on Windows XP and Vista without users' knowledge, even when the users have turned off auto-updates.
Many companies require testing of patches before they are widely installed, and businesses in this situation are objecting to the stealth patching.
Files changed with no notice to users
In recent days, Windows Update (WU) started altering files on users' systems without displaying any dialog box to request permission. The only files that have been reportedly altered to date are nine small executables on XP and nine on Vista that are used by WU itself. Microsoft is patching these files silently, even if auto-updates have been disabled on a particular PC.
More: http://windowssecrets.com/comp/070913/#story1
I Find This Shocking.....but Believeable.....
by tobeach - 9/13/07 10:15 PM In reply to: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent by Marianna Schmudlach
I don't put anything as being beyond MS's possible likely hood.
I wonder if they can do this with ONLY SP2 & later OS's??
Guess I'm off to check my older SP1 version to find out!! 
I couldn't have said this better...
by jackintucson - 9/14/07 10:59 AM
In reply to: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent by Marianna Schmudlach
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2182967,00.asp
and life goes on...
Jack
Thats why I quit
by deserttaxguy - 9/15/07 11:18 AM In reply to: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent by Marianna Schmudlach
I'm done with Microsoft and I am making every effort to move to Linux.
I hate their whole mind set. I don't use any Microsoft, Adobe, and other vendors with these type issues. I wonder why C-Net isn't a little less windows oriented and more open source informative? Hmmm...
I Also Have Opted Out of the MS
by tobeach - 9/16/07 12:16 AM In reply to: Thats why I quit by deserttaxguypatch, patch,patch 'til it's so wrapped in bandages it can't move at all...then sell 'em a new, more expensive system they can patch,patch, patch 'til..... it's got it's risks but I cover best I can with "..those damn 3rd party programs..." (Billy Gates) and don't seem to suffer many/excessive problems. Of course I use alt browsers etc.
C-Net does have forums for both Linux (1,170 posts/47 pages) & Mac OS
(1,717 posts/69 pages) but those OS aren't all that popular OR they are soo simple & have soo few problems there's not much to post about(LOL) 
.
For comparison:Win95/98 (3288 posts/132 pages) XP (26,799/1072 pages).
Perhaps they prefer their own specialty boards/forums?
Even THIS forum posts updates for Linux/Ubuntu/Red Hat etc. etc.
I have never noticed even a hint of discrimination against those OS's & indeed have seen many times Mods include link for Linux in their advice posts.
Given how Open Source Browsers/Mail Handlers/ etc. have increased in popularity in last few years, perhaps it is only a matter of time 'til the numbers increase considerably.
Despite MS huge budgets for marketing & sales, they (MS) seem to be, more & more, becoming their own worst enemy. JMHO! 
C-Net is Download.com
by Stocky - 9/16/07 8:07 AM In reply to: I Also Have Opted Out of the MS by tobeachMS/C-Net....
I made the mistake of telling my nephew to go to Download.com to grab Spybot.
The first thing the kid saw after entering spybot in the search field was Spyware Bot...
He didn't realize it was the wrong product... a real piece of rogue crapware that C-Net supports...and had listed ahead of the search results....
He downloaded it, and wrecked his fathers security/pc....
You have no idea the trouble it caused... no idea.
C-net couldn't care less !!!
Tell me... anyone here surprised??? That's C-Net. That's MS.
Familiar with SVCHOST yet ????
Go Linux....
Stocky
My Sympathies! That's Why I Only Ever Download ......
by tobeach - 9/16/07 11:19 PM In reply to: C-Net is Download.com by Stockyfrom AUTHOR's site or author's linked mirrors and prefer not to use the mirrors if possible.
Son in law last week clicked an Update pop-up for "needed" latest Flash player on a site, link indicated as Adobe but, of course, it wasn't (Phished). Took daughter 4 hours to recover to clean status.
One reason I haven't downloaded new Adaware 2007. Download.Com was ONLY offered download location. Sad!
Search Results not the Ads!
by xie - 9/22/07 4:43 AM In reply to: C-Net is Download.com by StockyI have seen people make this mistake before, but it is absolutely not download.com's fault. You need to be aware to actually look in the SEARCH RESULTS and NOT the Ads at the top of the page! You cannot complain and hold C-Net responsible for someone clicking on an ad instead of on the results they were searching for. Download.com is a wonderful resource but does require a little reading. Check to see if you are getting a full free program versus a limited trial. Read the agreement and instructions of anything you execute! Is it freeware or shareware? What is the licensing agreement? Is it for home use or can you use it in a commercial setting? If you are interested in a program or utility, you can always use a search engine and find out more about it on a tech blog somewhere else. Read the reviews. Read the system requirements. Subscribe to some of C-Net's newsletters that contain reviews of some of the top downloads each week. They contain valuable information and are enjoyable and quick to read.
Slow down. Don't click on the biggest banner or the first item you see on a page. Read. Make sure you are downloading the program with the exact name you are searching for. Submit a constructive review if you try the software and find it buggy, but include enough information about your environment to be helpful.
MotherSpy installing without permission? Heavens!
by yarlq - 9/16/07 5:33 PM In reply to: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent by Marianna Schmudlach
I don't put anything past MS - anyone that calls 'corrections' updates is a born liar.
I use XP-AntiSpy to shut out MS except when I want to update - it has options on about 50 leaks you can control.
I dual boot MS & Linux - MS requires continual attention, Linux goes for months with none. And Linux and its key software (Office, Gimp, Firefox and about 20 others) installs unattended in 20 minutes (actually it was 13 the last time) and updates everything in another 5 - then you are done for a month or two.
For Windoze I have Kaspersky piled on Sandboxie on Spybots on SpywareBlaster on -- you get the idea. My machine spends more time updating Windoze security that it does anything else.
Linux runs naked - it's never had so much as a sniffle.
Windows is such a jumble of patched code with correction piled on top of correction that it's just like a water bed: when you push <here> you have no idea what will pop up someplace else.
It's your choice: bloatware 'designed' by 60,000 paid hacks who live for 5:00 - or lean-meanware sculpted by 300,000 volunteers who pride themselves on introducing the best software they are capable of.
Every day I spend more and more time on Windows (patching, correcting, shoring it up) while I get more and more done on Linux (Xandros on my tablet, Ubuntu on the Desktop).
Last word on uninvited installs: MS is purely rude - unless stomped on they will take over your machine every time you start up and make you wait until the latest corrections are installed. Their entire approach is to usurp your choices and do it their way. And when they make a mistake, they tell you to go see your System Administrator or Network Manager.
Right. Like they're sitting in my living room waiting for questions.
Vista: a $400 SP3 for XP.
I hear you!
by glenn30 - 9/17/07 6:41 AM In reply to: MotherSpy installing without permission? Heavens! by yarlqLike you I am spending all my time in bed with Microsoft and Vista... not a very good relationship either! I am tired of it!
Glenn
Linux on my next desktop
by naebanks - 9/22/07 5:41 AM In reply to: MotherSpy installing without permission? Heavens! by yarlqHey Yariq, you've got skills. Liked your article. You should write for a magazine or something!
Microsoft dispels rumors of stealth Windows updates
by Marianna Schmudlach - 9/17/07 9:37 AM
In reply to: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent by Marianna Schmudlach
It's all about updating the updater
By Dan Goodin in San Francisco
Published Friday 14th September 2007
That prompted a Microsoft program manager to write his own blog post, explaining that the nine files related to the Windows Update service itself. Microsoft updates them from time to time to ensure that Windows Update will behave in dependable manner in the future.
"Had we failed to update the service automatically, users would not have been able to successfully check for updates and, in turn, users would not have had updates installed automatically or received expected notifications," the product manager, Nate Clinton, wrote. "That result would not only fail to meet customer expectations but even worse, that result would lead users to believe that they were secure even though there was no installation and/or notification of upgrades."
More: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/14/microsoft_dispels_stealth_update_rumors/
This may or may not be true Marianna..
by jackintucson - 9/17/07 12:23 PM
In reply to: Microsoft dispels rumors of stealth Windows updates by Marianna Schmudlach
but who is to say they aren't doing this kind of access somewhere else that no one has yet detected. Of course they would come up with some "plausible' explanation but only after they were caught at it. There is over 50 million lines of code written by hundreds of programmers who have no clue what the other is writing. I've been in this business long enough to know that at least one of those programmers is writing covert code that even Microsoft might not be aware of. This is what happens when there is a "rush to publish". I'm sorry, but no one will be able to convince me otherwise.
and life goes on...
Jack
Hasn't Microsoft heard of backwards compatibility?
by ausvirgo - 9/20/07 11:59 PM In reply to: This may or may not be true Marianna.. by jackintucson
Microsoft's excuse that "Had we failed to update the service automatically, users would not have been able to successfully check for updates and, in turn, users would not have had updates installed automatically or received expected notifications," is BULLDUST!
All Microsoft had to do was to give the server-side modifications a new URL, and allow the pre-update version of Windows Update to still use the old URL to retrieve the update to Windows Update with a description that said that the update must be installed to enable future updates and notifications. They managed something like this at least once for Windows 98!
The real key is the part of the statement that says "users would not have had updates installed automatically". Users who wanted updates installed automatically would have had the the service legitimately updated automatically anyway, so wouldn't have been affected. Clearly Microsoft's assumption is that updates should be installed automatically, and they just didn't consider those "foolish" enough to want to do it their own way!
Good response...
by jackintucson - 9/21/07 11:13 AM
In reply to: Hasn't Microsoft heard of backwards compatibility? by ausvirgo
I call it: "Microsoft wants to CONTROL not just your online experience but your ENTIRE computer experience". I have had a big smile on my face since the EU denied their appeal. "Open Source Programming" is a four-letter word to them and they are scared. The next decade will be very interesting indeed.
and life 'always' goes on...
Jack
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
