Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Installs New Software Without Permission
Futurepower(R) writes "Even though I have Automatic Updates turned off, on August 28, 2007, between 3:49 and 3:51 AM PDT, Microsoft installed new files on my Windows XP computer." Nine files are updated on Vista and on XP SP1, a different set of on each, relating to Windows Update itself. Microsoft-watch.com's Joe Wilcox and ZDnet's Adrian Kingsley-Hughes confirm the stealth update.
Is it me or does this just seem down right nasty?
If a person who uses vista or xp did not want any updates to their OS, they turn off Automatic updates. It's their choice. Where does Microsoft get off thinking that something like this is acceptable?
If I ran either of those operating systems, I would probably file a lawsuit, as to me that is a huge invasion of privacy. If they can force you to update those few files, they can absolutely view any and every file on your computer.
Although, this should come as no surprise...
I'd give it six months and this will be used to enforce install of WGA on every windows machine.
Why should you have to?
It could be worse, it could be Monday.
Can they pull? Interesting question to ask I think.
license? Do you own your copy of windows? No. You are only licensed to use it under their terms. Do you own M$ Office? No. You are only licensed to use it. If Microsoft wants to change their files on your computer they can. Also read carefully because some licenses of Microsoft actually claim that were you to so much as add any hardware you no longer are licensed and your windows copy will be in validated. I use linux, I don't have these problems. It has never been that Linux was a superior operating system. I mean for the longest time I had to deal with so much shit to to listen to an mp3. BUT the one thing about Linux is Your copy is Your copy to share and to see everythijg it does. Using linux was the first time I could take my Foil Hat off in years.
Does this mean that somewhere hidden deep in the API is the ability to automatically download and install files without user consent? Does this mean that somebody else could use that exact API to do something a bit less friendly? Does anybody else feel a whole new batch of windows security alerts?
http://blog.heavensdomain.net
*sigh* nice troll. 4/10
Hmm, care to prove me wrong? How many open source projects enforce monitoring or hidden updates about which there is no choice on users?
I'm really surprised that they think so little of us that they didn't at least bother to write up a canned statement about the update. Didn't they expect anyone to notice the patching? Many people take others messing with their PCs very seriously, be it micro$oft or some script kiddie out there, and track this kind of thing constantly.
Any word on what the purpose of the patching is?
What is really sad is that everybody here blindly trust this "article" without really checking and re-checking other sources. That's the scary thing these days.
It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
Those are exactly the kinds of things you agree to with EULA's, and it's not just Microsoft. Software licenses get more bizarre and dickish by the day.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
That's a fine setting for a home system. It's asking for trouble in a corporate environment, particularly one where you run custom applications or services. If this happens on your home computer, it's largely an issue of annoyance and inconvenience. If it happens to large numbers of computers in an enterprise, it may mean losses of millions of dollars. Most enterprises test patches on lab machines to identify issues before they deploy them. MS (or Ubuntu or Apple or whomever) has no business patching anyone's machine without permission. Period.
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
No, whats really scary is just how common it is for blind-MS hate and Linux fanboi-ism to cause people who should know better to do things like run with Windows Update turned off.
Many companies will not install patches - even the automatic Windows Update ones - until they have a chance to test it themselves and make sire that the patch doesn't inadvertently break mission critical applications.
Sometimes, even with known issues, the devil you know is better than the devil you don't...
I happen to like the fact that all three OS's I use (Ubuntu, OSX and Windows) patch themselves automatically for critical updates. I don't get butthurt about any of the three keeping themselves updated.
Wait until you get a call at 4:30 AM from an irate boss complaining that [Killer App A] is no longer working because a patch overwrote a DLL and it's now *your* problem.
If Automatic Update works for you - that's great for you. But for a lot of companies, automatic updates is like playing Russian roulette with a Glock 9mm...
I patch the boxes myself. I do it regularly. I CAN NOT have Microsoft patch them automatically because I run long duration tests that CAN NOT be interrupted by an update or a reboot.
As far as i am concerned, you need to have administrative privileges to alter those files. That means - MS does have them. So they have access to all data on affected (or should I say infected) PC. Now that's something authorities have to be VERY worried about. If they can use this loophole - someone else can act the same way. So much for privacy...
Ahh, what a pleasure it is to run emerge -uDN world. Updates only when YOU decide to do them. Ultimate freedom if you wish.
This freedom clearly overcomes all artificial difficulties with Linux. By "artificial" i mean hardware providers who don't provide drivers/specs and stupid patent regulations that require you to manually install additional codecs in order to play mp3/dvd. Linux IS a superior system because both problems have nothing to do with the system itself.
On a more personal level, I dislike most Microsoft products (with certain notable exceptions), because I think they have a corporate culture that promotes mediocrity and "good enough"-ness. As someone who has always labored to pursue quality and technical correctness as an end in itself, I find the inherent laziness in their products offensive. I understand this is a personal decision; looking at other product arenas, the mass market is usually filled with garbage. This is fine, and consumers should have a choice as to what they want to buy. However, I detest Microsoft for virtually eliminating the consumer's ability to buy better.
Also, they have an apparent contempt for both their competitors, which is understandable if unwarranted, and their customers, which is unacceptable.
I don't hate Microsoft for being on top. I hate them for being on top, while pushing an inferior product than the market would produce in their absence, on all of us.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Exactly what I was going to say. Any larger organization worth its salt is using a standard image on their PCs. Changes to that image have to be properly vetted through a change control process. For Microsoft to make changes with AutoUpdate turned off is, quite simply, wrong.
MS:O.k, we'll patch the system involuntarily.
"...But not anything that might actually affect security, only those features relating to disabling machines we consider invalidly licensed. Because we never make mistakes regarding licensing issues."
Yeah, I most certainly do take issue with them patching a system against the owner's wishes. After the owner has explicitly disabled autoupdating, I would go so far as to call that "criminal trespass". And doing so in a way that neither fixes nor improves the security of a machine... Not justifiable in any context.
This isn't directed entirely at you, but I do find these "I don't trust Windows Update" type comments quite ridiculous. So you trust Microsoft to write your computer's entire operating system, but you're afraid that a patch might contain something nefarious? Granted, software updates may accidentally break things from time to time (this is true on OS X and even Linux as well as on Windows), but if your concern is that Microsoft may try to install something "evil" on your computer - too late, you're already running their closed-source operating system; the damage, if any, is done.
If you're that concerned about it, install BSD or Linux instead. In any event, do everyone a favor and keep up with the latest security updates on whichever operating system you run.
I had a roommate once who refused to install Microsoft's Windows 2000 patches on his laptop, right up until my NIDS discovered his computer attempting to propagate the Zotob worm. Oops. He installs software updates now.
This is an asinine statement. OSs and the various supporting systems are complicated, often involving many 10,000 of lines of code. Even Linux requires patches, is it because Torvalds and his leigons of OSS bots didn't "design it right in the first place"? It's *not* rocket science, it's *computer science*, and it's not exactly as easy as assembling your little red wagon.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.