All Microsoft Updates Phone Home

juct writes "In the wake of heise Security's report on the garrulous WGA Notification, Microsoft has now supplied additional details on the data sent. They have revealed to developers that apparently all updates relay information to the company in Redmond."

Comments

I've said it before, and I'll say it again...

[Arceliar]

*In his best E.T. voice*
P.C. Phone Home

*ahem* I mean.. uhh.. I can understand wanting some information about the machines running one's software, as it helps understand the market and improve upon current design. But SOME of this information seems a bit excessive. Unless one plans to start banning specific pieces of hardware, but that's just evil.

Blog Translation

[Tackhead]

From the blog:
> By learning at what point in the install process some users decide to abandon, we can put more effort into the right places in the installation wizard. Remember our goal with the wizard is to give more information so customers will be better informed. We heard from customers that they wanted more information about what the software was and how it worked so we created the install wizard to provide that greater context. Knowing this kind of information about the install wizard installations is critical for us to continue to improve the customer experience of WGA. If we are not hitting that mark, we can use this method to improve.

By learning at what point in the install process some users decide to say "Fuck this, I didn't sign up for this!", we can put more effort into the right places in the installation wizard. Remember our goal with the wizard is to obfuscate and misdirect so customers will either not know how we're spying on them, or for those who figure it out, at least they won't be able to sue us over it. We heard from customers that they wanted to know what else were doing behind their backs so we created the install wizard to provide us with plausible deniability. Knowing this kind of information about the install wizard installations is critical for us to continue to propagate the viral meme of WGA and other notions, like software as a service, and ultimately the notion of an operating system as a subscription-based service, like we're doing with the Windows Vista self-destruct sequence. If we are not hitting that mark, we can use this method to slowly increase the amount of DRM we've crammed up your ass until you look like the Goatse Guy, and if we do it slowly enough, you'll not only pay us, you'll thank us for the privilege!.

Re:No

[asphaltjesus]

My firewall detects the connections after doing manual installs. I know this because I've got production equipment we can't just let windows auto-update on. Based on my experience, WGA is just one of many apps/updates that phones home.

Again, it's been this way for quite a while, and the information does not "perfectly" identify you, but each install has it's own signature as far as I can tell so they can deduce who you are pretty quickly.

Why do you care now as opposed to all of the other Microsoft's-evil-OS stories on /.?

EULA

[Zapraki]

Like the article says:

"In the Privacy Statement of Windows Update Microsoft grants itself fairly far-reaching rights... By way of justifying Microsoft's approach, alexkoc writes that the EULA, likewise presented by the WGA installer, also covered the relaying of such information."

So I guess it might be a bit sneaky, but it has all been covered by WGA disclosures.

An example of the XML returned when a user cancels an installation is available here, "just to allay any fears that Microsoft is using any personal information".

So ya, I don't think this is a huge deal, nor particularly unexpected.

Re:All updates relay Information...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

That's hardly surprising.
Considering that most of these applications are installed via the windows-update site...
I doubt you could even maintain a session without sending information back to the web-server.

Yeah totally, because:

• Computer make and model
• Version information for all installed Microsoft software
• Plug&Play ID numbers of hardware devices
• Globally Unique Identifier (GUID)
• BIOS name, revision number, and revision date

are all necessary to download a single specific update not to mention maintain a session to the web-server.

Success/Failure/______/etc./ (Profit?)

[Mateo_LeFou]

TFA: "In the Privacy Statement of Windows Update Microsoft grants itself fairly far-reaching rights. Thus the information collected by the Redmond-based behemoth includes the computer make and model, version information for the operating system, browser, and any other Microsoft software for which updates might be available, Plug&Play ID numbers of hardware devices, region and language setting, Globally Unique Identifier (GUID), Product ID and Product Key, BIOS name, revision number, and revision date"

Kinda sad that we just assume letting vendors capture all this info is part of the game (i.e. necessary to make the update work right). Wrong. When I do "yum upgrade" -- as far as I know -- not a single piece of information about my system goes up the wire. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Re:All updates relay Information...

[Lothsahn]

I'll bite:
Computer make and model -- needed for drivers for specific manufacturers and models. Do you really want to apply a HP patch on a Dell system?

Version information for all installed Microsoft software -- Needed to calculate whether or not updates are needed for Windows Media player, etc. Remember, Windows update does more than just Windows--it also updates all included bundled software with Windows.

Note: Sending information about non-bundled software is needed for Microsoft Update, but not Windows Update. Perhaps lazy coding there--wouldn't YOU want to share the hardware/software detection code for both update utilities?

Plug&Play ID numbers of hardware devices -- Well, it does update hardware drivers...

# Globally Unique Identifier (GUID) -- This seems completely unnecessary.

BIOS name, revision number, and revision date -- I'm not sure, but I believe they may also provide manufacturer-supplied BIOS updates for some manufacturers.

I'm no huge fan of Microsoft, and I'm not saying Microsoft isn't misusing the information, but in 4 out of 5 cases this seems necessary for the service they are providing. Remember, Windows Update updates drivers, hardware, and bundled software too. Microsoft Update services Microsoft software as well.

UK/EU - Data Protection Act

[stevedcc]

So, I live in the EU. We have rather stronger laws regarding companies holding information on people than you Americans do. I object to this information being collected on me. Whilst I can't stop them collecting it, I CAN force Microsoft to reveal all information they hold about me, after I pay an admin fee of around £10 and it'll cost them far more than that to provide it. One person is nothing, but if a whole bunch of irate people were to start asking for this information - MS would be very unhappy. Now if only EFF Europe or some other organisation would organise a pro-forma, and encourage a mass "ask MS to reveal what they hold on you" - as many people as possible in as small a window as possible. Geurilla consumerism is great fun!

Re:Nothing to see

[Mr2cents]

First the say:

With some updates such as the WGA Notification, the installer transmits data that Microsoft says it merely requires for quality control purposes and to improve the installer itself. and in the next paragraph:

When the product IDs and product keys found belong to legal software, Microsoft will delete the data right away; only in cases of suspected software piracy will it store the data, So when you are a legit user, they don't care about the quality of your software. They're only interested in the quality of pirated software.

YIKES! SQLServer, DB2, Oracle, or TeraData?

[mosel-saar-ruwer]

"In the Privacy Statement of Windows Update Microsoft grants itself fairly far-reaching rights. Thus the information collected by the Redmond-based behemoth includes the computer make and model, version information for the operating system, browser, and any other Microsoft software for which updates might be available, Plug&Play ID numbers of hardware devices, region and language setting, Globally Unique Identifier (GUID), Product ID and Product Key, BIOS name, revision number, and revision date"

There are what - like a billion or so computers in the world running an M$FT operating system?

And e.g. Windows 2000 is now up to something like 125 or 150 Critical Updates since SP4?

And they're keeping track of all of that data?

That's a database that would make the NSA green with envy.

Can SQLServer handle a load like that?

Or would you be looking at something specialized, like what National Cash Register built for Wal-Mart?

Re:All updates relay Information...

[QRDeNameland]

You realize that the complete list of patches and optional downloads, for all supported versions of all supported products, is likely to be freaking huge? You wouldn't want it downloading that every time you run Windows Update - especially not dial-up users.

I seem to remember Windows Update in Win2000 prominently displayed a message: "Checking your computer for installed updates...this is done without sending any information to Microsoft." And it only downloaded the updates I needed, not every one for every supported product.

Did something fundamental change as to why that system can't work anymore?

List of data sent back

[trianglman]

From the WGA Blog

• Source ID (which product is requesting an update) - necessary to get the right patches
• Event Code - Not sure what sort of events this is tracking, curious, but not necessarily evil
• Version - I assume this means version of the updater, but could mean version of the base software, either way see #1
• Hash of the event - good security check
• Custom Data - completely unexplained, this is what worries me the most in the list
• Return Code - ok from a usability standpoint (most websites track when users leave, so I put this in the same class as that)
• Part of a domain? - no reason for this to be sent, as far as I can see
• Partial binary product key - piracy reasons? Can't think of any other good reason for this
• WPA hash - also unexplained, but probably related to the above
• OS version - see #1
• User locale ID (langauge) - reasonable if they are presenting nationalized dialogs, removes a prompt from the user
• System locale ID (computer default language) - don't see much of a reason for this except as a backup for the first, odd
• Diagnostic code - reasonable for debugging
• Client Id - i.e. GUID - why do they get this if they aren't using it for user tracking
• HD volume serial - no reason for this, except user identification
• Computer security hash - see above

Other than those last identifiers, most of the information I see requested make sense.

Re:Simple solution

[schwit1]

Doesn't Windows ignore the HOSTS files when it suits them?

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/16/13 51217

Re:Surprised?

[HermMunster]

It is a violation of privacy and Microsoft is sending information back to their location for storage or not against the wishes of an individual.

If you break the law it is still up to the police and the courts to follow legal procedure to catch you and prove you broke the law and then to punish you commensurate with the proven charges. Even if you steal something and they know you stole it they can't do anything about it till they prove it. Part of that process is to get the legal search warrants and other court orders to permit them to do this.

Microsoft is a civil organization which is usurping the rules of law that were well established. In fact, they are effectively searching everyone's home every time to prove they are not in possession of stolen goods. The government can't do that. Microsoft should not either.

Any information sent to them without our express permission is a violation of our privacy whether they store it or not. It is not permissible for them to blatantly flaunt in our faces the fact that there is no one there to stop them and if you try you won't have the resources to do so.

Again people, remember the computer you have is an extension of your home. It is not a playground for microsoft to do what they want. Would you allow them to come into your home to inventory your belongings and then make you account for all those things you may purchase after the fact? Would you let them check on you any time they choose? Hell no. You would never let anyone into your home to do that. So, why on fucking hearth are you letting them search your computer to inventory your system to send private information back to their offices? Is it because it isn't an inconvenience to you to allow them to do this? Because you have no recourse to stop them?

So, you say that it doesn't hurt you to have them to enter your home and search it and report back to their offices? So, then would it hurt you to allow the government to do this if they could do it in such a non-invasive way? How about putting hidden camera's in say 20% of homes and no one knows they are there so you have at least an 80% chance of not being spied on!?! Would that be acceptable to you? Hell, 1 if 5 chance of being someone that is observed by the government. Once you got used to it, wouldn't it be acceptable to have the government then say 40% and up it over the next 10 years to 60% and then all the way? You would have become accustomed to having the government spy on you?

I think you understand what I'm getting at. This is the same thing. You would not let the government do such a thing, and even some people feel cameras in public are a violation of our privacy.

Microsoft is not the government and they have no rights to do what they are doing. They should not be collecting any information unless you explicitly permit it.

As I have said in other posts. This is about them collecting as many pieces in their databases as possible. Having this information gives them a lot of leverage.

Have you heard about how the patent office has claimed that file sharing software is a threat to national security? How about a monopoly power that has control over 90% of the worlds computers able to go into your computer and home unchecked by any sort of mechanism that is designed for checks and balances? You think that is less a threat to national security than it is to allow people to share information between 1 or 2 or more party members. Either the comments by the patent office are totally ludicrous or no one is willing to accept that this sort of unchecked behavior by a company in control of 90% of the worlds computers is a threat to national security.