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?
If you RTFA you'd find that Microsoft is only "looking very seriously" at this idea,
that it would not apply to business users of XP (since they want careful control
of the patching of their machines), and that it would be possible to opt-out from
the automatic updates.
So if you are a business user you don't get automatic updates, if you are a home
user of XP that is technically savvy you can turn it off, and if you are a home
user who is not computer savvy then you are going to get automatic updates. This
latter group seems like the ideal set of people to get automatic protection.
John.
if someone breaks into MS WindowsUpdate servers, he could install ANYTHING on millions of computers!
wow... scary...
1) WindowsUpdate needs to become MicrosoftUpdate. This would scan and offer patches for all MS software (OS, Exchange, SQL, IIS, Office, Visual Studio, ....). Also extend SUS to do the same.
...
2) Critical Update notification should be done the way OSX does it (with a little configging) -- instead of a tiny little innocuos icon in the system tray, put an obnoxious pop-up in the middle of the screen, with a big "Go Ahead and Install" button, with lots of skull & cross-bone icons.
3) Create patches using their own packaging structure: MSI. This allows for much simpler deployment and management, via Active Directory. No need to pay for SMS simply for patch deployment.
4) Supply MUCH MORE documentation to end users, discussing the importance of keeping one's machine patched.
5) Stop producing such buggy software! =}8v)
Just my $0.02
10b||~10b -- aah, what a question!
Anyone remember NT4 Service Pack 6? The first one? The one that broke tcp/ip?
Let's assume for a moment that everyone's fine with Microsoft deciding you need to patch your system. Your home machine downloads the patch and installs it and your machine reboots - you're patched.
Those of us that work as sysadmins/netadmins/DBAs at various companies know that when Microsoft puts a patch out on Windows Update, it's not necessarily tested out to completion. That's part of why patches take so long to proliferate - dependable administrators test them in-house, instead of depending on MS's testers. Let's face it...if Microsofts Quality Assurance team were so sharp (or listened to - it can't ALL be their fault), many of the after-the-fact patches wouldn't be necessary.
Is Microsoft going to take responsibility for auto-installed patches that a) don't work b) make situations worse? Or are they going to take the stance of "The user could've refused our auto-install, but they didn't - they knew the risks."
We all know how hard it can be to opt-out of spam - how difficult will Microsoft make it to opt-out of auto-installed patches...and for those of us that can't/don't, how sure are we that it won't make things worse?
I have several people who use a web based service from my company that runs on Windows 2000 Server. I check for patches daily and install them as soon as I do a full backup (in case it shits out the whole system).
My users kept calling saying "You have that Blaster Worm on your system because every time I try to connect my computer dies!". So I explain to them my systems have been patched for that exploit for over a month and I have run all the proper testing software to verify. I then ask if they have AntiVirus software installed and their reply is "I don't know.". Lol, I don't know, so it must me my server! I immediately tell them to invest in a copy of Norton Antivirus and Norton Firewall.
Ah, the world of windows.
The funny thing is if these same people were running linux they would be logged in as root and still execute whatever script someone sent them. I'm not too sure Linux would be any more secure than Windows because in windows you can also run as just a User. However, when doing that a significant number of poorly designed programs will not work.
well, technically you give permission when
i agree that not knowing what's getting put on your machine is irksome, but this idea has sprung from two problems that everyone here is very aware of:
now, having said that, i hate the idea on principle... but i can understand why redmond thinks it's a good idea. they're taking a beating in the press over security and they've determined that the real problem (rightly or wrongly) is the end user - so now they have a "solution"
2 1337 4 u!
I'm sure these customers didn't know they had a problem with their PCs. That was the first fact that caused the worm to be a problem. The fact that the computers weren't patched was secondary. Instead of pushing the patches, why not be more aggressive about notifying customers, and giving us better tools to patch and scan? Asking millions of users to pull updates ALL THE TIME, or turn on an automatic pull where there are only 3 configuration options is a real lack of choice. There are lots of things in between that can be tried. If I were a home XP user, and I saw a notification, "Message from Microsoft Security: Due to a problem recently found in WinXP, You are at high risk of being hit with an intrusive virus or worm. Here is a web site with details. Here is a 1-800 number with details. To correct the problem now, press Ok." Supposing MS did give home users this easy to use scan, notify, patch utility, the only reason they would not use it is if the EULA were too scary. This is easy to fix. Put a big splash screen with "Absolutely no Information is gathered and Sent to Microsoft. To see how this tool works, click here. Microsoft will never change this policy without your consent. (Like we did with WindowsUpdate)" We shouldn't have to wait long to see an analysis of Blaster, but I am going to guess that the majority of infection vectors came from business or academic Win2000 installations. WinXP systems crashed so much, they weren't efficiently spreading the worm. So corporate tools to fill this middle ground need to be improved. The hard to learn and use tools like IIS lockdown, hfncheck, etc need to be seriously overhauled. At work, I would love to have a non-web-based WindowsUpdate SCANNER, and a separate PATCHER. They'd be easy to use with a GUI, but also have command line options so they could be used in scripts. (SUS isn't what I'm talking about, because it is browser based, and the process is still a pull. The only way you can push an important update is to go to each server, or set the servers auto-pull frequency really high) I also wonder if MS is afraid that making system maintenance too easy might cut in to their SMS server sales?
Valid points... but we're talking lesser of two evils here. I would much rather see a single user of a computer have problems (due to firewall, updates) than their unpatched machine causing problems for more than one user.
We can't have it both ways... right now windows is set for ease of use over security... and having auto-updates and a firewall will move them towards the security side of things and away from ease of use... but isn't that what we've been bitching about for years?
What I find really odd is that we threat computers so differently from the real world. If a real product is found to have a defect then a recall notice is published in all major newspapers (in europe don't know about rest of world) and you can return the faulty product for either a replacement or your money back.
Granted if software companies had to do it this way they would all have gone bust. Or maybe they would invest in real testing. Real testing is not to see if something works but to see if you can break it. When I hear excuses like people using the product wrong as an explantion for bugs I get pissed off. You are not supposed to bite the nose of a teddy bear and then swallow it. Nonetheless this is exactly what is tested against. A product should be safe to use or clearly labelled to indicate who it shouldn't be used by.
I think it says it all that unlike almost everything we buy in the netherlands, software is not tested by a goverment/indepedent organisation. Everything else is. Clothes, cars, books, movies, toys, furniture, food etc etc. But software and hardware are not.
Think this is a strange notion to test software by a central organisation? This what all the consoles do for their software. Oh and please don't mention MS certification, this are just logos you can buy.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
SP 6 broke Lotus Notes servers thus 6a came out.
Even worse, SP 2 installed over a network failed. Failed badly. It did something horrible to the ntfs.sys file IIRC. This meant that the box would blue screen on boot and be irrecoverable if you had an NTFS partition.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
If I have to reboot my servers every time a major bug hits (3 times/year) for 5 minutes, that's bad enough. (99.9971% availability) If I have to reboot the servers every week, now we're down to 99.95% uptime.
This, of course, doesn't count downtime or technical support issues caused by workstations missing their server connections, or the patches that didn't happen in time, or any of the various other factors that help kill capitalism, and endanger our National Security.
--Mike--
1. Microsoft releases a patch a month before a virus hits.
2. People do not install the patch.
3. The virus hits affecting thousands of machines.
4. Microsoft comes under heavy criticism.
5. Seeing that a lot of people won't install patches manually, they look into automatic updates so that they can avoid wide-spread virus infections in the future.
Seems like MS is in a catch 22. People will criticize them for having manual patches available or for automatic updates. It seems like they would have to create the world's first flawless OS for everyone to be happy.
All OS's require security patches at some time or another. It just so happens that Windows has such a large customer base that their viri have a wide-spread effect while viri for another OS might not be as major. So I ask, what can MS do realistically to announce and distribute security patches?
"Oh dear, she's stuck in an infinite loop and he's an idiot" -Prof. Farnsworth (Futurama)
If the software update is a new version of Windows Messenger or iTunes, users should be able to say no. But what if the update prevents your computer from attacking other machines? Maybe your right to ignore software updates ends when your PC attacks my network!
At some point, we're going to have to make security updates mandatory. They would be downloaded and installed automatically, whether the user wants them or not.
The user might be able to say, "Not right now," but should not be permitted to reject security updates altogether. After a reasonable period of time, the system could be programmed to prevent all network access except to get the security update.
I'm not entirely comfortable with this idea, but I suspect that's where we're headed. I have no doubt that Microsoft will introduce something like this in the next XP service pack (or sooner).
Here's what's needed to make such a system succeed:
- Version 3.0 Quality
- No Tricks!
- Updates For All
- CD Distribution
I don't have much confidence in Microsoft's ability or desire to make a system that works this way, but I think that's what is needed.Most users and sysadmins have been burned at least once by beta-quality patches that do more harm than good. Every "Security Update" should be thoroughly tested before it's released. If a crisis makes a quick-and-dirty security fix necessary, a high quality fix should follow ASAP.
Any mandatory update system will fail if the updates are perceived to be unnecessary, unreliable or self-serving for the OS vendor.
In the past, Microsoft has used the Windows Update system to force unwanted Microsoft software on users. (If I remember correctly, IE6 was released as a "Critical Update" to IE5.) No more.
Also, system updates must be kept separate from application updates. (i.e. Disabled versions of Messenger should not mysteriously reappear after a system update.)
If one machine is insecure, we're all insecure. If Microsoft adds a security update system to Windows XP (or introduces this as a feature in "Longhorn"), a compatible system must be made available for older systems, including (at least) Windows 2000, Win98 and WinMe.
Although software downloads are relatively cheap and convenient for the OS vendor and for high-speed Internet users, dial-up users should be able to get the latest software updates on CD promptly, for a nominal fee.
Maybe there's a viable alternative to mandatory security updates, but I don't see one. Clearly, the current system doesn't work, and it's costing us all time and money.