Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft wants Automatic Update for Windows

Edward Dao writes "After the embarassment of last week's blaster worm, Microsoft is weighing the possibility of automatic update. Microsoft not only wants to upload the latest patch on to users' computer but also installing it for them." This will work out really well for everyone I'm sure. Yikes! Can I at least press 'Ok' first?

10 of 917 comments (clear)

  1. oh yeah? by krisp · · Score: 5, Funny

    Of course, this will be implemented in such a way that implantinga fake RR for windowsupdate.microsoft.com into a local name serverallows Windows to download and run any file with a certian file name. This should make it far eaiser to fool Windows Update into installing Linux.
    This will make Linux rollouts a breeze after buying all those Dells.

    Imagine the possibilities!

    Then again, the Microsoft Tax is cheaper then the SCO tax.

  2. Does this mean.. by DiS[EnDeR] · · Score: 4, Funny

    they want to reboot my computer without informing me?

    --

    Harder.. Better.. Faster.. Stronger
  3. Bye Bye Bruce by kindbud · · Score: 4, Funny

    "I have always been a fierce enemy of the Microsoft update feature, because I just don't like the idea of someone else -- particularly Microsoft -- controlling my system," said Bruce Schneier, co-founder of Counterpane Internet Security Inc. "Now, I think it's great, because it gets the updates out to the non-technically savvy masses, and that's the majority of Internet users. Security is a trade-off, to be sure, but this is one trade-off that's worthwhile."

    And that concludes our evaluation of Counterpane's security consulting services. Have a nice day. Don't let the door hit you on the way out, Bruce.

    --
    Edith Keeler Must Die
  4. Perspective by mukund · · Score: 5, Funny

    if (company_trusts_microsoft_code())
    {
    use_windows_OS();
    allow_auto_updates();
    }
    else
    use_some_other_OS();

    /*
    junk code

    bitch();
    moan();
    flail_arms_wildly();
    */

    --
    Banu
  5. Ideas for auto-up by jamienk · · Score: 3, Funny

    * Check for warez/serialz -- disable them and alert the vendors. Vendors can subscribe to "MS Auto Alert" program.

    * Check for downloaded MP3s (from a database of known MD5s) -- disable them and alert the record distributors. RIAA can subscribe to "MS Locked Tunes" for service.

    * Check for P2P programs -- disable them and alert local gov't authorities. Gov'ts can give big grants to MS for this as part of their "Anti-Terror-and-Pro-Business-Computers" bill.

    * Check for web/ftp/irc servers -- disable them and alert ISP as to uploading violations. ISPs can join the "MSN One-Stream" network.

    * Check for NAT -- diable and notify ISP... part of the push towards "MS-IPv6-PLUS!"

    * Check for competitors' products (DRDOS, Java, Mozilla, OpenOffice, etc) -- disable them and alert user that their software was incompatable with the latest service pack. This one is free for end-users!

  6. Re:Not such a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
    "The divide between the tech-aware and tech-unaware grows exponentially."
    ...and so do my consulting fees. [insert evil laugh here]
  7. This is the only way by The+Pim · · Score: 3, Funny
    Microsoft and others aren't going to stop producing buggy software. (Really, the effort would be Herculean.) So when there's a hole that will harm users, and knowing that most users won't voluntarily apply patches, what are they supposed to do? Saying "you should have patched" doesn't help their image, and doesn't help computing in general. When exploits can spread across the net in minutes, it's not even tenable for sophisticated users. Having users apply their own patches is an inherently losing proposition.

    What's likely to happen? Microsoft will screw up a few times, to great embarrasment, then they will by economic necessity learn how to make reliable patches. After all, their only alternative is the greater embarrasment of rampant worms and viruses. The rest of the industry (including free software) will see that it is possible, and be pressured to do the same. It may be rocky for a while, but the end result is that millions of naive users will have reasonably secury systems. This is a huge improvement over today.

    --

    The evaluation of an action as 'practical' . . . depends on what it is that one wishes to practice.
  8. Re:Not such a bad idea by RoLi · · Score: 4, Funny
    Those shouldn't be done automatically anyway. Only security patches should be automatic.

    And Windows shouldn't crash. And there should be no war and no hunger. And there should be no need for any patches in the first place.

  9. Re:Service Packs by nuser · · Score: 3, Funny
    Anyone remember NT4 Service Pack 6? The first one? The one that broke tcp/ip?

    Can you imagine the consequences?

    1.Get auto patched.
    2.No TCP/IP so get disconnected from net.
    3.Reinstall OS
    4.GoTo 1.

    Familiar statistic restated - 90% of the worlds useful computers don't run windows!

  10. Re:Asimov! by shamino0 · · Score: 3, Funny
    1. Start a religion
    2. Patch buggy versions of Windows
    3. ???
    4. Prophet!