Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft 'Stealth Update' Proving Problematic
DaMan writes "According to the site WindowsSecrets, the stealth Update that Microsoft released back in August isn't quite as harmless as the company claims. The site's research has shown that when users try to do a repair to XP subsequent to the update, bad things happen. 'After using the repair option from an XP CD-ROM, Windows Update now downloads and installs the new 7.0.600.381 executable files. Some WU executables aren't registered with the operating system, preventing Windows Update from working as intended. This, in turn, prevents Microsoft's 80 latest patches from installing -- even if the patches successfully downloaded to the PC.' ZDNet's Hardware 2.0 has independently confirmed that this update adversely affects repaired XP installations: 'This issue highlights why it is vitally important that Microsoft doesn't release undocumented updates on the sly. Even the best tested update can have unpleasant side-effects, but if patches are documented properly and released in such a way that users (especially IT professionals) know they exist, it offers a necessary starting point for troubleshooting.'"
Duh. Undocumented updates cause problems. In related news, failure to check for a buffer overflow causes software bugs.
My blog
Why not just let everyone patch their systems, and shut off the "non genuine" check or whatever is blocking this? Why wouldn't you want people to patch the systems? Doesn't an unpatched and infected system equate more directly to lost revenue than a "non-genuine" flagged system?
stuff |
"I will gladly patch you Tuesday for something I broke today."
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
I guess their focus & therefore resources will switch more and more to Vista, so this kind of thing will probably happen with increasing frequency.
This is the reason I support and use Linux. It started as a hobby, something to do with old equipment. But, now it's because of disclosure. I know what is being installed, and can choose when to update, what to update, and, If I've the time and inclination, I can take the update apart, see what it's doing, and even modify part of it.
Microsoft doesn't allow me this, and continues to fail to predict the negative consequences resulting from these choices. Apple at least gives me the option of installing an update, even though they have a bad record on the full disclosure thing too.
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
Wasn't it for windows update to "work properly" that those patches were released? Way to go MS, foot in mouth, lather, rinse, repeat...
Ha ha, it is like taunting a little kid with candy telling MS not to do something like this, now as odd as it may sound I hope they keep doing stuff like this so that all the company computers where I work will have troubles and then I can help all my IT buddies install some Ubuntu!
To see a few of my Android apps goto: www.hartwired.com
I've been using this fix since before August for other windows update problems. Did notice an increase in how often I had to use it but didn't work out why.
A dozen system files have been updated as part of this undocumented stealth update... and yet not a single antivirus software reported this. Why?
How do these antivirus programs know for sure that these updates were 'harmless' and 'normal behaviour'.
In light of this revelation, I think corporates must now take action against these antivirus firms for not preventing this breach. Let's see what Microsoft has to say to this 'harmless' update that allows users to 'know and be informed of further updates'. A Media Defender style expose' of internal communications on this issue would be very interesting indeed.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
My PC dual-boots XP and Mandriva. I've set it to default to Windows, because windows boots over and over, sometimes for hours, before it finally relents and comes to life. I've suspected a BIOS setting it doesn't like, or that Windows wants its own FAT instead of LILO, but could it be that Windows is trying to phone home, even though my internet access has been shut off for a couple of months? Even though it's a fresh install and the PC hasn't been connected to the internet since before the install?
And do thay have any idea what a pain in the ass it is to "register" that God damned OS without internet access? If I could get the S-Video out to work with Linux, XP would be history on my PC.
I only hate Microsoft because I've used their shitty programs and operating systems. Funny, their stuff was pretty good fifteen or twenty years ago! I loved DOS 6.2!
-mcgrew
I'm not sure what the answer is, but someone has got to work out better technology for designing and updating operating systems. For thirty years now, we've had operating systems that only work as perfect integrated wholes, and operations called "installation" and "uninstallation" and "updates" and "patches" which are basically ad-hoc processes for which the operating system offers relatively little support.
Everything depends on everything else. After a few years of updates and software installation, whether on Windows or Mac OS X (no, I can't speak to Linux so if Linux solves all these problems I plead ignorance), almost every system is in a slightly broken state, and you just hope it isn't intolerably broken. Talk to any average mom 'n dad and they'll say "Things that used to work fine on our computer aren't working any more, I guess it's just time to buy a new computer."
Some new way of building operating systems is needed that reduces the interdependence of its components.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
If I'm reading this right, the problem is that the patch gets applied out of sequence if you 'repair' from the original CD.
Would the same issue not happen if you just installed from the CD from scratch? What prevents it from installing out of order when you do it that way?
Seems pretty serious either way, and it has me wishing I'd turned off the automatic update service on my only Windows PC. It's too late now, but you can bet it won't get internet access until after that's disabled when I format that machine next.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
I ran into this a couple of weeks ago. When the attempt to use update.microsoft.com fails, the "troubleshooter" will direct you to a Knowledge Base article that advises you to do the following:
At the command prompt, type the following commands, press ENTER after each command, and then click OK every time that you receive a verification message: regsvr32 wuapi.dll
regsvr32 wuaueng1.dll
regsvr32 wuaueng.dll
regsvr32 wucltui.dll
regsvr32 wups2.dll
regsvr32 wups.dll
regsvr32 wuweb.dll
Once that is done, you'll be able to use Microsoft Update again.
Maybe they forgot to rinse.
The lather-repeat caused a buffer overflow.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I'm actually in the process of upgrading a windows 2000 image to XP Pro (no, it can't be a clean install, it's a long and dull story), and got bit by this bug. When I searched for the error number associated with the windows update failure on technet, I did come up with technet article explaining how to register the windows update dll's to fix it (as also listed in the linked article). I just assumed it was an odd bug because of all the cruft in the windows 2000 install.
Now I find out it's because of a broken secret mandatory update to the DRM that breaks windows update altogether. Nice one Microsoft!
I had another bug after that windows update, http://support.microsoft.com/kb/883821
That took a lot longer to fix, as none of those listed fixed it. Perhaps that was also related? Lovely.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
But earlier this year I had to allow a client's machine to use an XP service patch or be have to tell the user that the machine would be out of warranty both from the OEM and Microsoft.
The patch (SP2) froze the computer completely after an aborted install that the screen recorded as having been successfully uninstalled. It took nearly 20 hours of non-stop attempts plus two service calls to avoid having to wipe the disk -- which was not an option -- and afterwards the "Genuine Advantage" program still wants more updates.
Not surprisingly, I won't be recommending Microsoft on their next desktops. Ubuntu will be fine.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
I thought this was because of Skype, Windows Media Player, VLC Player or Real Player. I installed new versions of all of these apps but this did not help. I struggled with this problem and found little help, even from Microsoft itself. The good thing is that Windows XP has a [neat] feature that rolls the system back to its previous configuration. This is what I used and had this problem solved.
But I then wondered whether we in the Linux world have anything comparable to the feature that helped me roll back my settings in Windows XP Professional. I haven't found one! Have I looked hard enough of am I looking in the wrong places?
Do these people realize that the ENTIRE POINT of Microsoft forcing the Windows Update patch was to make sure that future updates would trigger whatever policies the user had selected for the machine?
In other words, if Microsoft had not updated Windows Update automatically, and a user had chosen to be notified of future updates, these notifications would not work. The only way to ensure that the user's settings were properly respected was to update Windows Update.
So now this article says that the silent update wasn't harmless because Windows Update was broken after they did a restore. Do they realize that without this update, Windows Update *definitely* wouldn't work, and that the fact that this update may have a bug in it regarding restoration is completely besides the point?
Should Microsoft have made it more clear that they were doing an update? Yes. Is this update proof of Microsoft's desire to ignore user preferences and do whatever the hell they want? Obviously not.
How fucking dare anyone out there make fun of Microsoft after all it has been through?
Its stock price has stagnated. Google made Steve Ballmer mad. He threw two fucking chairs.
Ray Ozzie turned out to be a blogger, and now he's posting a bunch of comments. All you people care about is readers and making money off of them.
It's a corporation! What you don't realize is that Microsoft is making you all this money and all you do is write a bunch of crap about it.
It hasn't made a good OS in years. Its spreadsheet is called "excel" for a reason because all you people want is EXCELLENCE! EXCELLENCE! EXCELLENCE!
LEAVE IT ALONE! You are lucky it even makes products for you bastards! LEAVE MICROSOFT ALONE!
Please!
CmdrTaco talked about professionalism and said if Steve Ballmer was a professional he would've monkey danced no matter what.
Speaking of professionalism, when is it professional to publicly bash a company who is going through a hard time?
Leave Microsoft alone, please.
LEAVE MICROSOFT ALONE RIGHT NOW. I MEAN IT.
Anyone that has a problem with it you deal with me, because it is not well right now.
LEAVE IT ALONE!
I think its more:
don't update -> evil
do update but break the OS at the same time -> evil
if it updated without any problems, I'm sure people wouldn't have any issues with it. Well, less issues anyway.
Maybe MS is trying to goad people (like IT professionals) into upgrading to Vista...
TRUST NO ONE
The thing about this "stealth update" that riles me up is that it's indicative of the patronizing, "we know better than you" attitude that Microsoft has towards its customers. They just decided that anyone running Windows would get this update and that's that. Now, wonder of wonders, it's causing problems. Does anyone really think that they'll address this problem in a reasonable, responsible way? Or will they just release ANOTHER patch at 3:00 in the morning to fix the first one?
This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
that includes the whoreabull behaviours of both the corepirate nazis, & their hired goons, the southern baptist life0cide movement.
but this is slashdot, what would we complain about?
slashdot'ers need an "Evil empire" in the same way as US needed the Soviet "Evil empire" to keep population in control thru fear (same thing they are doing now with terrorism)
Then wouldn't it be in Microsoft's best interest to ship all installable releases with deliberately deficient code? This way they virtually guarantee that the end user will connect for an update. In a way they are already doing this with manditory activation (some features turn off if Windows is never "activated").
At the good ole Tarleton State IT department we have seen this problem a lot this link has the best fix we have found so far: http://www.updatexp.com/0x80248011.html Give it a whirl. P.S. - Everyone hates the bully on the playground (Microsoft)
blah
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
FTFA:
"This, in turn, prevents Microsoft's 80 latest patches from installing -- even if the patches successfully downloaded to the PC."
That the trouble I had recently! A few weeks ago, a friend asked me to clean up three of her family computers that were crawling with spyware/adware, and trojans, as well as upgrade them from WinXP Home to WinXP Pro. I got them cleaned up fine, and did the upgrade. After booting to the desktop the first time, I ran Windows Update to grab the latest patches. On all three machines, WU would install some needed components, reboot, download all outstanding patches (approximately 80+), and then fail on the install on every single update.
Windows Update would NOT run without erroring out. It took me a few hours to realize I had to manually re-register all of the components for windows update, after which I also had to delete ALL of the downloaded patches, as well as all of the $NTUninstallKBXXXXX stuff.
Then again, maybe I just did the update wrong three times in a row?
And it should be obvious to anyone who knows the company... upgrade to Vista, and you won't have to worry about repairing your XP installation anymore!
Who says this is an -unintended- side effect?
More likely a deliberate strategy to get people to buy Vista: "Oh, are you having problems with Windows XP? It's obsolete. Pay us more for something new, with it's own problems."
Like all complex systems any change will have 'interesting' side-effects.
And that (IMHO) is MS-Mindows main problem. It's too complex, and this is why there are so many issues with it.
End of story.
Wrong. It's
they do update their product without asking or telling you => microsoft == evil.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Do people who don't disable the automatic updates have the intelligence to "shoot trouble"?
...or you blacklisted all IP's from Microsoft long ago when your Windows installation reached the point where everything worked and you lost interest in changing a running system.
I mean... either you install windows patches because you're a 08/15 user who doesn't know better...
I don't know... maybe Microsoft updates are the worst kind of spam one can receive...
I just ran a repair on an XP machine last friday and ran into no such problem. Windows Update ran just fine for me.
The stealth "upgrade" will make XP quite unstable. And MS will just say, XP has been end-of-lifed and Vista upgrade will fix the problems. Then Wall Street will get comfortable numbers about Vista sales. Things will continue as normal.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Yeah, I think this opens the door to a class action lawsuit, because someone could argue that they accessed their computer, without their permission, thus violating the computer abuse and fraud act.
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
But because Microsoft updates system files so often, AVG just flags them as "changed" and notifies you as such. Also, most anti-virus tools are probably checking against a blacklist, not blocking any and all suspicious activity.
The kids need a lunch lady to hate. Otherwise they do not feel they fit in.
Groupthink is quite amusing when you think about it. I just love seeing the vehement rants against a software company. So much wasted passion for a mostly inept, overly corporate software company. You'd think they were out killing babies or clubbing baby seals. Twitter is the most extreme example of this, and one of those people who I don't believe really exists.
What a long winded way to say the Windows update is such a horrible mess it isn't funny.
Me, I like rolled up file based updates. Download it and save it off. When the beta testers say it is OK, I apply. I have earned with over 20 OSes behind me that you patch to point in time from proven groups of patches. This idea of "auto" update is so fundamentally flawed...
I've been seeing this problem for years and been using Dial-A-Fix to fix it up.
This problem with repair reinstalls isn't new.
--I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.
nothing better than a borked XP box to herd the sheeple to a new purchase of Vista, i seen this coming as soon as vista started taking hits from critics that mostly proved valid...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Nothing new here.
/. story nowdays ;)
KB555615 documented this in May 06.
Come to think of it, 16 months is about the usual time lag for a
--I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.
"Just let us patch the systems
(Score:5, Insightful)
by 192939495969798999 (58312) on Thu Sep 27, '07 08:16 PM (#20768587)
(http://www.devinmoore.com/ | Last Journal: Thu May 24, '07 04:46 PM)"
is a reply to:
"Microsoft 'Stealth Update' Proving Problematic
Posted by Zonk on Thu Sep 27, '07 08:11 PM
from the we're-all-learning-together dept."
The post #20768587 appears at the top when the setting is for "Highest Scores First".
The content of that post seems to be some kind of a 'styrofoam peanut' response, that got modded +5 Insightful. More insightful responses posted prior to this reply are drowned below, because of this intersting 'timestamp' bug.
Some astroturfing, and playing with Slashcode, perhaps?
The thing that really gets my goat is their totally arrogant presumption that its ok to put files on my box without asking me in the first place.
Whereas documented updates are magically OK?
OK, OK, that's not really what you meant, and it's not your point
=====
If you ask me, the real problem is updates. Let's say that one update in 50 is significantly defective -- which is, IMHO, quite optimistic. Let us further guess that 50% of the defective updates introduce new unexpected problems rather than failing to (fully) fix the existing problem -- they do test these things. At least I hope they do. What is likely to get past testing is errors in areas that no one thought would be affected. Lets assume that there are 10 updates a week on average, and that the average time from first report to fix is four weeks.
If you just uncritically load updates, you'll download new grief every 10 weeks or so and take four weeks to get it fixed. that means that five times a year, you'll unwittingly install a significant new problem and that about 40% of the time you'll be living with one or more of these things.
IMO, the best strategy -- at least for larger operations -- is to evaluate each and every patch, and to load only those which seem absolutely necessary. Even that is not going to work all the time.
As for updates that you aren't asked about... A truly bad idea. Hopefully Microsoft and other operations that believe in automatic updates will learn their lesson from this relatively modest (we hope) fiasco and will never ever do THAT again. Memo to organizations that do that. If your QA -- who are overworked, underpaid, and probably need a vacation -- screws up at the wrong time and you put an important business sector offline for days or weeks, you are looking at a major league class action suit. Don't expect the shrinkwrap EULA to protect you.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
... for doing what I did http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=299057&cid=20619703
Not that I really had any doubts to begin with.
I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
If Microsoft were a racehorse it would have been put down by now.
It is a drag on our society, on our culture, on our economy, not to mention the rest of the world's.
I wish something could be done about them, but we just have to wait for them to blow all their own limbs off and bleed to death I guess.
What about the option:
Notify about update - allow user to approve or deny -> not evil
If MS would have pushed this update out in the normal way, this whole issue wouldn't have come up.
I've been having customers call with all sorts of odd problems since the 'stealth' updates, in particular Firefox quits working.
It even happened on my Vista Basic, post-last-update.
WTF, micorSoft? Trying to get those IE numbers up or something?
Thank Deity that I use Linux for my work and personal computing habits...
"...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
You seem to think that every time a system file gets updated by whatever process, that should be flagged and prevented
Actually yes, coming from a UNIX standpoint this is exactly what programs like Tripwire do.
If I have AV software I would love to have it notify me system files had been altered, whatever the cause - perhaps not prevent but at least issue a warning at some point.
Since viruses can potentially modify trusted executables there's no reason to trust any program running as any user more than anything else.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Here.
Most people seemd to think that it was not a big deal at that time.
Many companies use WSUS to deliver Windows updates.
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/wsus/default.aspx
Did the stealth updates install on PCs that don't have WGA installed, and don't update from the Windows web site? If not, what effect will that have?
Environmentalism is the new Victorianism. Everyone ties on a green corset and pretends we're virtuous.
This is way we need windows xp sp3 or a update roll up so we can have the newer windows update files and other updates on the install disk.
80+ updates for a new xp sp2 install is a lot.
Sigh
You know, this wouldn't have happened if Alan's access wasn't cut off and the TRON program was up and running. It would have been watchdogging the MCP and shut it down. If things got bad enough, Flynn could have jumped in to help.
I believe the reference is to how well Windows 98 (and 98 SE) was received by Windows 95 users (98 offered lots of good fixes and new features over 95) as opposed to how poorly Windows Vista is being received by Windows XP users (since it doesn't really offer any must-have features or bug fixes).
Portable versions of Firefox, GIMP, LibreOffice, etc
You're right to some extent. This being Slashdot, Microsoft would be blamed for something even if they brokered a lasting peace between Isreal and the Palestinians, cured cancer, or brought global worming to a screeching halt.
But in this specific case, what they did was quietly load updates onto computers whose owners naively believed that they had turned automatic updates off. (Not so easy to kill a Microsft automatic update mate. Not only do you have to shoot it at least twice with silver -- not lead -- bullets, but you need to drive a cedar stake impregnated with garlic through its pancreas). And they exacerbated that because the update was defective. Just maybe they deserve a bit of criticism on this one.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
You have zeroed in on the heart of this problem with laser like precision. I couldn't agree more.
If you run a business on an OS you need to know the details of upgrades. You need to test all upgrades against your production machines before applying the upgrade.
I am not talking about a home desktop, or even a corporate desktop system here. Think about computers used to control water or fuel delivery. Maybe a system that reconciles ATM transactions at a bank, or adjusts inventory databases from sales at retail locations, or the automated system that routes calls to a city's 911 emergency center.
Businesses and Governments depend on many customized pieces of software day in and day out. All software changes must be tested and shown to have no ill effects before thay are applied to enterprise production systems.
Any OS that does not allow the user to control the application of patches and updates, and instead updates systems by stealth, is not ready for the enterprise.
Think about the problems that could result if people use an OS like Windows in misssion critical applications that involve lives.
Even if lives are not involved businesses cannot tolerate amateur stunts like stealth patches from an OS vendor. They could lose billions of dollars trying to find out the cause of a problem.
This highlights how out of touch Microsoft is with the needs of enterprise level customers.
....but has anyone considered that this is was something they wanted to happen? Vista isn't selling as planned, xp is still selling well. Maybe some bad publicity for xp and some less well informed users switching to Vista as their repair didn't work would help things? I did the whole repair thing, and there wasn't a single page about it from MS, just had to go to the forums. Just ended up re-installing completely, hardly ideal, but couldn't have done a thing about it.
I'm always amazed how people assume wast conspiracies and evil thoughts in anything Microsoft does. I bet, 99% of the time organized incompetence of a bloated corporation is the better explanation.
I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
They never had this problem with DOS...
How did Windows Update just suddenly break on every copy of Windows any ways?
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
"This being Slashdot, Microsoft would be blamed for something even if they brokered a lasting peace between Isreal and the Palestinians, cured cancer, or brought global worming to a screeching halt."
;)
I don't know if they'd be blamed, but I'm sure a lot of people would be suspicous
There is truth to a lot of it though, they have done a lot of shady things over the last couple decades and there is really no reason to believe they've changed. It's not exactly undeserved.
They're a business and their goal is to stay dominant and extract as much money out of people as possible. Not a problem in itself, they are just too big and have too much leverage. A smaller company wouldn't have that much money to sway (so many anyway) politicians, committees, etc, or dictate the market to such a degree.
An OS is pretty much a commodity. So to not be a commodity, they need to bundle things tight, squash or embrace and extend alternatives, then use their lock in as leverage to generate new revenue streams. I think it's obvious the end-game is to be a toll collector for everything. You always make more money renting then selling something once. But people aren't buying a OS to have it spy on what they're listening to for 10% of the time (or whatever it is) or to have it prevent them from making a screen cap, etc.
The whole net neutrality issues is pretty much the same. A Packet is a packet. A dumb pipe (as an OS should be). We want more money without adding any value. Hmm, let's start hitting up the end producers and consumers depending on what they want to do. You want to work well with our service? You pay us more or your services won't work well with out users.
They are just utilities whether they like it or not. Picture your electric company telling people what kind of appliances you could use or how you could use them, or that to use certain brands or types of appliances will cost more than others even though they use the same amount of power, then at the same time going back to Maytag and saying, "You need to pay us extra if you want your users to have the best washing experience". People would riot.
Then there are people who just hate them because they don't want to pay for anything at all and are pissed it's become so hard (comparatively) to pirate. But I think most people who are zealots about it fall into the former category.
-William Shatner can be neither created nor destroyed.
Of Course MS is Evil! see the following article:
http://www.bbspot.com/News/2000/4/MS_Buys_Evil.html
I think that just about covers it; IANAL but I suspect a crime has been committed.
How about this situation with the Yorktown?
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
2weeks ago trying to figure out why the Fuck windows update wasn't working after repair install... i managed to fix it with the Window update agent 3.0 technique myself... but could have saved me an hour if this had come out two weeks ago.. oh well.
actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.
Yep, this is just one more help .doc for virus makers. "Remember, always unregister the .dll's, and you'll be good to go."
Use NLite.
http://www.nliteos.com/
...I guess, is to screw up XP installations worldwide :)
Or perhaps foot-in-mouth disease.
All i have to do is look at the Windows Update button and my computer starts screaming,
"DON'T TASE ME, BRO.....DON'T TASE ME!"
~ge~
I think there are two seperate issues here. I think the fact that the update broke windows-update and that the update was done without the consent of the user should be considered seperately and don't really have a bearing on each other.
/., this is probably something that should have been picked up on early on.
I doupt that this was the first time a windows udpate has broken something, and i doupt it will be the last. I think what is special about this particular update is that it made changes to windows-update itself. In the result that a detail is overlooked, you could damage alot of systems with no way of easily fixing the problem. When patching a critical part of the operating system (i believe the ability to update is critical) more time and money should be spent ensuring no mistakes have been made. Given the large userbase microsoft has and the nature of the patch, i think it's irresponsible to let a bug like this get overlooked. Clearly by the number of "Oh, i had that happen to me" responses i've read on
Now to the question of the 'stealth' update. Alot has been said on the subject, so ill keep it short. A few things concern me:
Microsoft's relative silence in explaining why this specific update had to be done in this manner (I dont' buy the 'technical impossibility' argument). I can't see a reasonable reason to do this.
I think that something as critical as window's update should never have had a backdoor built into it. From the very start the system should have been built so that this was an impossibility. One person with the right know-how could do alot of damage if they wanted too.
Rather than quitting support for XP, Microsoft plans on breaking everyone's XP systems, thus forcing them to either:
1) "Update" to Vista
2) Switch to Mac
3) Switch to Linux
If I bought something that's being intentionally broken by a company, how often would I want to buy something from that company again?
regsvr32 wuweb.dll
regsvr32 wups2.dll
regsvr32 wups.dll
regsvr32 wucltui.dll
regsvr32 wuaueng1.dll
regsvr32 wuaueng.dll
regsvr32 wuapi.dll
http://wisdom.jambohosting.com/viewtopic.php?t=11
Harry McLaren - Hazclan13 http://www.kumahosting.co.uk
My understanding of a "silent update" is that the user is never prompted, yet the article seems to state that the user is prompted unless full automatic updates are turned on, in which case, all updates are promptless because the user has chosen that method of update.
I don't think that passes muster for a "stealth" or "silent" update? Do you?
--
Toro
Sounds like a hardware problem, to be honest. Like a bad bit or two in low memory, for example... do you have memory testing turned on in your BIOS? If it's set to "fast boot" it will skip nearly all useful testing, fast boot is just a way to generate money for PC repair shops. :)
It's really rare to see any useful testing from the BIOS. I've seen the BIOS give a clean bill of health to SIMMS and DIMMS only half seated in their sockets. I would try memtest86 if you think there is something wrong with the memory.
I actually saw this problem myself just the other day, but didn't know that it came from the stealth update before seeing this article. Ironically, I had actually convinced my parents to buy a legitimate copy of Windows XP Pro. They were using the infamous Corporate Edition, and I was tired of having to work around the product key changes and other bullshit like WGA, plus every time it came to install updates they would whine to me because they forgot what not to install (WGA). I did a repair install so they could keep all their programs and settings. After that, no updates would install. The help on the Windows Update site actually suggested the same fix to the problem explained in the linked articles (and it works).
Anyway, I am royally pissed off at Microsoft because the move from a bootleg install to a legitimate one broke Windows because of Microsoft's malice and stupidity. Fuck you, Bill. This is how you repay me for going legit? I have already tried a move to Ubuntu (bad support for laptop docking stations, funky video settings, and wireless networks) and Mac (way too restrictive, few hardware choices), but maybe I should try again. I already have Debian on my file and backup servers, plus Ubuntu on my test-bed computer. Microsoft does not deserve any more of my money.
It's an operating system, not a religion.
"Hello 911? I just tried to toast some bread, and the toaster grew an arm and stabbed me in the face!"
Microsoft 'Stealth Update' Proving Problematic
Their regular updates often prove problematic.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
http://blogs.technet.com/mu/archive/2007/09/28/issues-installing-updates-after-repairing-xp.aspx
its cool. you can take the tinfoil hats off again... just don't let them out of your sight, you might need them again shortly.
Protector of Capitalist views,
Meorah
When I first started using Linux I couldn't code for crap. I used it because it was fun learning something new. Once I started to learn to code (because I was curious, not because I had a special need to code) I started delving into things like patches.
People like 'me 6 years ago' benefit from work submitted by 'me now' types. Yes, there are people out there that scrutinize updates. Only one person has to come up with a fix for a whole world of people to benefit.
MS was wise to that trick a while back. Unless you've got a corporate license version of XP or Vista, for the OS to _work_ you have to phone Microsoft support and answer some challenge-response questions. Sometimes you have to go through interrogations of why you're reinstalling Windows for the third time in a week, etc.
I am really thinking out loud here, as I've not done any research... call me a bit paranoid.
This could be Microsoft trying to destabilize XP installations so that people might actually start using Vista more.
It would make sense.. make XP as unstable, and people might opt to try Vista in order to gain the stability they've enjoyed with XP for the last several years.
I certainly hope I'm way off the mark!