Slashdot Mirror
Examining Microsoft Update
eggsovereasy writes "The Inquirer is reporting that a group in Germany has deciphered the information sent to Microsoft during an update using Windows Update and says that information on all software installed on your computer is sent, even that which is not Microsoft's own software." The original article is, unfortunately, pay-per-view. Update: 02/26 18:19 GMT by T : ionyka points to this "related article from ITWorld that deals with Microsoft's transferring of information through Windows Media Player. When you open up Media Player it sends information back to Microsoft like what movies you play, what songs you listen to and where they come from."
Remember the little "No information is being sent to Microsoft at this time...." message during updates? Wait, why am I laughing?
Trying to figure what other companies they should push out of business.
How can we comment, if we can't read the article?
Oh, wait...
The reason why it sends info about other applications (and third party drivers for that matter) is so that they can attempt to be a single-source vendor of patches if needed.
While the intentions may not be all that honest, it's not a horrible idea. I've noticed numerous times when running Windows Update that it's offered to upgrade my Cisco Wireless LAN software as well as my Epson print drivers. Kind of nifty and not all that bad, if you ask me.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
Here is the rest of the article, in PDF format. I'd suggest grabbing it and mirroring as soon as possible... this one won't hold up too long.
http://home.byu.net/~btc25/WindowsUpdate.pdf
One of the more interesting parts deals with how Microsoft can tell the difference between product keys they generated and those done with a keygen.
I made the same mistake...it is ppv...you can read freely until the heart of the article, then it's 1.99 (euro) for the rest.
They've updated the story to give the full info on what gets sent back here: http://www.tecchannel.de/betriebssysteme/1126/14.h tml
> or does it use 1394?
I think it uses 1984.
Read the parent comment.
This isn't Windows Update he's talking about, it's the EULA for recent versions (XP, IIRC) of Windows.
You mean they can see my Kenny G. pr0n screensaver?!?!?!?
Got sushi? The Sushi FAQ
I'm not defending microsoft here but nothing in the blurb that you posted says that MS won't collect the list of software on the machine. To play devils advocate its pretty easy to say that the installed software is part of the configuration information on the machine. Further it makes some sense how this is useful in picking which patches are presented to you. If there is a patch in windows update that fixes a bug that affects 1 software package in the world that 1% of users use then wouldn't it be useful to scan to see if that is installed and only present the patch to the 1% of users that need it. Especially given that many bug fixes cause bugs in other software that relies on the broken behavior or some kludgy work around.
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
I have to say that it's not nearly as scary as advertised. There are two complaints:
1. The Windows Update tool sends to Microsoft a complete list of what hardware you have.
2. If the Windows Update server claims to have an update available for product X, the Windows Update tool will check to see if you have product X installed, and report back to Microsoft.
Well, *duh*. The only way to avoid doing this would involve downloading a complete list of all the updates available for every supported piece of hardware or software. Based on the size of the windows HCL, I'd guess that this would require tens of megabytes of bandwidth -- all so that Windows Update could pick out the half dozen entries which are relevant.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
Microsoft needs to collect this information for driver updates and other *useful* updates.
No they don't. They can just send a list of updates to the client, and the client can display the updates that apply to your computer. This is why Microsoft can claim no information is being sent to their server: because sending information isn't necessary.
This is actually how APT works.
If I tell windows to look for the drivers for a particular device than by all means probe the device for information about it. How does scanning all installed applications aid in this endeavor?
If the reasoning was to better detect and avoid application conflicts I would possibly agree with this method, but the software clearly doesn't do that.
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
Dear Steven,
Good point. Your previous Slashdot postings are also good, except for that one about Linux.
Sincerely, Bill G.
Never confuse "Lazy_ass_user computing" with "computing for people who have better things to do with their time than fuck around searching for drivers on some poorly designed manufacturer website".
The more data that gets sent to microsoft, the harder it becomes to manage. Someone should figure out a way to send them Junk data with wrong version numbers. Windows 3.11 running IE 6.0... that'll leave them scratching there heads.
Here in Holland (I don't know the laws in the rest of the world too well) any contract that you sign which contains clauses that are illegal, is null and void. Any statement of MS having the right to download anything off MY computer would seem to me totally illegal and would probably void the whole EULA. ;-)
I did read the EULA of the Dutch version of Win2K SP3 completely and never found any clause that would allow them to download anything off my PC without my consent.
Sadly I'm stuck with Windows since I cant (yet) afford a mac to run Adobe apps on. When oh when will Linux/FreeBSD/X get decent colour management and ports of proper graphics apps like Illustrator, Photoshop and InDesign??? The GIMP is a nice toy, but it's hardly of any use for print production work. And KIllustrator and the like are simply a laugh too for any real work.. The Linux/BSD vs. Windows ratio is now 4:1 in the favor of the free, but I'd like to get rid of Windows altogether. Give me my killer graphics apps!! I'll even pay for them!
Saving up for that Mac in the mean time..
Learn from the mistakes of others. There isn't enough time to make them all yourself.
so this person with a so precious time should think twice before buying products from a company with such a "poorly designed website" or that don't ship a version of the drive with the product
-- SouNerd.com
You cow-orker was right.
Now, look here, there's no need to be mean.
-Waldo Jaquith
I am running Win 3.11 with IE 6.0 and what you're suggesting will interfere with my support!
This isn't just some random company that nobody has ever heard of, with a clean slate. It's 2003. When people deal with Microsoft they know what they're getting into, regardless of what Microsoft says.
Sorry, I'm gonna call bullshit on this one. While it's true that people involved in the industry generally know what's up, many people outside of it don't. People who have better things to do than read IT-related media get all of their news about MS from totally mainstream sources in the first place, and lot of people could really give a rat's ass about today's MS article on Yahoo's front page. As far as Joe Sixpack is concerned, it's an IT-related story, and he probably doesn't care what it says. If you are not into the theatre scene, do you read reviews for every play in your area? If you are not interested in business, do you read every story in the business section? Probably not, and my mother doesn't read every store about Microsoft.
Saying that the victim is at fault is not a solution to the problem, and is not an excuse for bad behavior on MS's part.
teeker
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The Devil came to Redmond, looking for some souls to steal,
and there he met with Billy G, who was just about to make a deal.
Said the Devil, "Hey Billy, you look bored, would you care to make a bet?"
And Billy he smiled slyly, and said "Dude, there ain't a deal that I've missed yet."
So the Devil took his keyboard and showed Billy his new game,
Saying "I wrote this quick, in VB6, now see if you can do the same."
Billy G, he just smiled his smile, and took the keyboard away,
and said, "Devil, you're behind the times, and you clicked on the EULA,
"Now you've run Windows Update, and your soul belongs to me."
And the Devil knew he'd met his match, so he turned and tried to flee,
But Billy G was much to fast, and he caught the Devil's long black cape,
Saying, "Devil, stay and play a while, we have a whole wide world to rape."
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\IllegalMicrosoftStuff\ BillGatesVISAnumber\8605412399653153
h Da te\2003.06.21
.... hey, why not have some fun with it? q:]
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\MSKillerVirus\Launc
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Linux\"format c:\; install Linux"
MadCow.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
(Last Updated 10/15/2002)
Windows Update is committed to protecting your privacy. To provide you with the appropriate list of updates, Windows Update must collect a certain amount of configuration information from your computer. None of this configuration information can be used to identify you. This information includes:
Operating-system version number
Internet Explorer version number
Version numbers of other software for which Windows Update provides updates
Plug and Play ID numbers of hardware devices
Region and Language setting
The configuration information collected is used only to determine the appropriate updates and to generate aggregate statistics. Windows Update does not collect your name, address, e-mail address, or any other form of personally identifiable information.
Windows Update also collects the Product ID and Product Key to confirm that you are running a validly licensed copy of Windows. A validly licensed copy of Windows ensures that you will receive on-going updates from Windows Update. The Product ID and Product Key are not retained beyond the end of the Windows Update session.
Maybe you should verify the information before automatically declaring "Microsoft is evil" to any and all anti-Microsoft posts.
I like my women how I like my sugar.. granulated.
I use the Update Agent in RedHat almost on a daily basis - the RH Network knows absolutely everything about my setup (programs, modules, etc.) right down to what version of the Kernel I'm running - that way they can inform me of vulnerabilities and problems that I'm probably susceptible to as soon as there's an update available...it's a "good thing".
Why is it that when Microsoft does this kind of thing, suddenly there's a more sinister motive behind it all?
I don't hear anyone complaining about Redhat's privacy policies...
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/search.aspx?dis playlang=en
-B
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
As explained by Russ Cooper of NTBugTraq in a lengthy rant on Tax Day of 2002, Windows Update is a horrible piece of crap. He followed it with another lengthy rant about what he thinks Microsoft should be doing instead of Windows Update.
In the meantime, while downloads are large (~1.5MB), the XML package you get for HFNETCHK searches your system for proper file versions and remains the most reliable way to ensure your system is properly patched. Unfortunately, the best tool for checking your patch state (HFNETCHK) doesn't help you download the patches you need. It does identify the MS security alert addressed and even the KB article, but it's not painless. MBSA gets you one step closer by actually having the URL of the KB article, but it's not as painless as downloading updates via Windows Update (when WU properly identifies your patches).
Anybody who's used the atrociously-bad Automatic Update Service will know that it doesn't cover many important software updates and neither does Windows Update. In fact, if you use all three products, you'll frequently find that each product identifies a different set of patches that are required, and usually, none of them list all the patches identified by the others.
What I've found is that HFNETCHK actually identifies truly critical patches, while Windows Update improperly identifies non-critical updates as being critical. For instance, it tells you that installing Internet Explorer 6.0 SP1 is critical (even when you're running a fully-patched IE 5.5SP2) or even worse, it tells you that a patch meant to improve functionality of using a non-IE default browser is critical.
Sorry, but as much as I hate MS and as much as I prefer Mozilla to IE for my own browsing needs (and even though it works better), I don't make it my default browser anywhere, especially on servers, so this update is hardly critical.
In short, while sysadmins at least have a chance to stay fully-patched these days--unlike the days before Code Red--MS still has incredibly shoddy patch management tools, incredibly inconsistent patch installation mechanisms and still takes liberties with customer data it shouldn't need to take.
If Microsoft ever gets serious about patch management, they'll have a common tool that sysadmins can use to patch any and all of their MS software with a common interface and no unnecessary transmission of system-specific data to MS. Is that too much to ask? Apparently.