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.
I'm pretty sure the EULA states somewhere MS can do this. You agree to it when clicking that little checkbox for accepting the license when installing the damn OS.
It would be nice to know the IP address that is being contacted here. With that, automatic update could be turned off at the router/firewall. If you trust Microsoft you always get punished.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Why would you want to run an unpatched XP box?
I wonder if this still happens even if you have set the Automatic Updates service to 'Disabled' in services, rather than using the control panel applet which tells it not to update but still leaves the service running.
Probably a good idea to disable the BITS service too.
I've always asserted that an OS is by its very nature an natural monopoly. This is not to excuse the behavior of entities which use a natural monopoly to nefarious ends. For what it's worth, I prefer the Windows monopoly to say Apple's (not that I dont covet a Mac mind you) monopolistic actions with regard to thier OS, in particular the iPhone.
Why hasn't someone diff'd the files that were updated and dived into the disassembly and checked to see what was actually changed?
Would be more informative than bitching about it...
Peace sells, but who's buying?
...since Windows 95 even. It's part of the remote registry background process that facilitates the ability to read data from any file in the filesystem, not just only the registry files.
Scenario (A) Lazy Windows users, don't update there Windows to the latest Patches, said computers become infected with spyware/bots/trojans, everybody blames Micro$oft for having shoddy insecure software Scenario (B) Windows ensures than users always have the latest update & security measures by forcing updates on users, and everybodys blames Micro$oft for invading thier privacy Simple I know - but I can't really see what else is expected of Micro$oft? They lose either way.
I would guess the WGA is updated, and an ability to stop pirated copies of old OS is in the works. Good way to sell more copies of Vista when the problem is that people are holding on to their old OS. Turn off the old one, they gota buy something.
Doesn't this violate every corporate network policy on the planet? What about the defense department?
What if the one of the computers was monitoring a critical system and the stealth upgrade crashed the system?
Isn't this a violation of Sarbanes-Oxley computer auditing requirements?
Food for thought.
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
I'm not a Microsoft fanboy by any means, but has anyone considered the possibility that the forced update could be due to a unknown critical exploit in WU?
I'd really like to know the purpose.
If it were anyone but MS, I'd assume it was a countermove to Storm or some other large botnet (you don't think Storm's the only one, do you?) which disables or subverts the usual automatic update process.
Knowing this is from MS, I wouldn't be surprised if it's WGA or some DRM crap.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
None of them have the indicated "stealth" updates.
The only computer that has the "7.0.6000.381" versions is a laptop that I explicitly updated last night (before reading about this issue.) Both the Win XP Home and Win XP Pro partitions have the newer wu* files... the ubuntu partition does not ;-)
Do you have that ugly Windows Security Alerts shield in your system tray? Mine is turned off. Maybe the wscntfy.exe program gets some updates for the update program... and I don't have that running.
At the end of the day, I suspect there is a way to prevent "stealth updates", and it won't be anything sinister, just average programming at work.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
You've hit the nail on the head here, OP. Computers running Windows (and probably every commercial OS) belong to Corporate America. Our "experience" on those computers is tuned to project Corporate America's image-- their thoughts, their desires, their decisions about how we should exist and consume-- right at us... and it's hardly subliminal. If our experience is full of bugs, viruses, trojans, etc., we won't use our computers to hear or view licensed media, and the relationship between MSFT and the media companies/consortiums will evaporate-- so they must get it right. If they fail, we won't use our computers to play their partnership-driven advertising-filled games, we won't use our computers to experience the corporately pristine Internet in its AdSense-driven ways, and most of all, we just won't use their product. Corporate America is at a cusp, where getting it right or losing everything are their choices. Linux makes that possible.
Corporate America has found that the power of Linux isn't just to compel them to write better software. Nope, these companies have found that Linux removes their ability to control what we see, hear, play, and where we do it; Linux removes their ability to color our experiences and allows us to actually own our computers-- and maybe our lives.
They have to figure out what to do next, and so do we.
[Error 407: No signature found]
If I was an amoral monopoly desperate to stimulate sales of my new operating system, and said operating system was so benefit-free that the only way of shifting it was pre-loaded on new hardware, I would perhaps consider updates that impacted the performance of my earlier one. If I could get Joe User to think 'Hey, this old machine is getting slow, perhaps it's time for a new one' then I win. Is this too fanciful? Anybody done any performance benchmarks of vanilla XP versus a fully-patched one on the same box?
I like "The difference between theory and practice is greater in practice than in theory."
Something about ending the sentence on a prepositional phrase, instead of breaking it into two, adds an extra hint of dissonance.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Sure, the CDs are sold. The documentation is sold. That box? You own it.
But to install the software located on the CD, you've gotta accept the EULA - End User License Agreement.
You own the physical medium, but you do not own the software it contains.
If automatic updates is turned off, and the service is disabled, just how did MS know to send an update to the machine in the first place?
Nobody has to have Windows. Nobody even has to have a computer. There's lots of people without computers. Having a computer and having windows installed are both choices you make. You may even need Windows to operate your business. But then again, that's how you've chosen to do business. Or you clients require that you have Windows, to create MS Word compatible documents. But that's who you've decided to do business with. Nobody forces you to use Windows.
In all honesty, I'm not completely for or against Microsoft. I'm running Linux on my laptop, because I just use it to browse the web, do a little personal web development, and Linux runs faster. I'm also a software developer, and am currently working in an MS based shop. I use what suits me best for what I'm trying to do. If you don't like windows that much that you think they are completely evil, then just stop using it. If enough people do it, then maybe they will change their ways, or, if they don't and people continue not use it, they could even go out of business, or at least the OS market.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
The whole article is a piece of FUD. There are no auto updates of any files happening if you turn Automatic Updates off. See here .
This space for rent.
I think that what the GP is trying to say is that with Vista (and possibly XP too) Microsoft transformed Windows from a software sale into a service offer. So you're not buying an item (ie. Windows OS copy), you're paying for a service (Windows update), and so you cross from copyright or property law into contract law. Also makes EULA legit, because it's not imposing terms after you bought an item (which would be arguably illegal), it's doing it before you start using a service. Pretty cunning of Microsoft, if it's true.
i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
No, I *AM* buying software. That's what you do when the sales guy in a high street shop hands you a box with software in and you hand him money. It *is* a sale. It is virtually the very legal definition of a what a sale is. I suggest you read up on British consumer law.