Slashdot Mirror
What's Really Broken with Windows Update - Trust
Be Cool writes "According to ZDNet, Microsoft has steered itself into a real trust tarpit with Windows Update: 'See, here's the problem. To feel comfortable with having an open channel that allows your OS to be updated at the whim of a third party (even/especially* Microsoft ... * delete as applicable) requires that the user trusts the third party not to screw around with the system in question. This means no fiddling on the sly, being clear about what the updates do and trying not to release updates that hose systems. While any and all updates have the potential to hose a system, there's no excuse for hiding the true nature of updates and absolutely no excuse for pushing sneaky updates down the tubes. Over the months vigilant Windows users have caught Microsoft betraying user trust on several separate occasions and this behavior is eroding customer confidence in the entire update mechanism.'"
This may have been a bad move, but Microsoft knows that in actuality there's nothing the users (corporate and private alike) are really going to do about this. They may complain a bit; write some unpleasant articles in some online sites/blogs, but at the end of the day you're still going to be using their stuff. Effectively saying "just suck it down and shut up". And in reality, this is what 99.999999% of Windows users are going to do.
If you have an effective monopoly, trust really doesn't matter.
-USR1
Anyone who trusts Microsoft after the past two decades of dirty behavior is a fool.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Even without TPM, even without CPU serial numbers, if the update software has to change my computer without telling me, it is operating out of bounds. I can't trust it in enterprise; I can't trust it at home; I can't trust it as an install or development environment.
kris_lang
How about full disclosure about what's changing on YOUR PC? There's no reason why MS can't provide that in a timely, good, cheap manner. The real problem is that MS is a monopoly, and they can do whatever they want, and there's no other product that users can easily switch to.
I totally agree with the tag that reads "editorsdontgetit". The problem with having this stealth update capability in the first place is that it's a clear and obvious vector for attack and p0wn4g3.
If somebody figures out how to hack these stealth updates (and now that people know the capability exists they will definitely try), then we can all look forward to the time when a rootkit or other exploit is pushed down to machines and installed with the blessing of the OS and the complete ignorance of the person whose machine just got screwed. And it'll look like a legitimate update as far as all parties are concerned after the fact.
The author claims that it's a "Bad Thing(tm)" when people eventually decide to pull the plug on Windows Update, and I agree given all the legitimate patches that have been made available this way. But on the other hand, what choice do we have? Do we leave a door open that has been proven to be used in an untrustworthy fashion by the very people that are telling us to trust them and that they're making our machines better/safer/++?
Will somebody please start writing games for Linux so I can be free of this nonsense?
C
The Sun is proof that we can't even do fire properly.
That has nothing to do with it... the problem with Windows Update recently is not that they aren't pushing out updates in a timely matter or that they are pushing out buggy updates too quickly, it's that they are being sneaky about updates. There's no reason that they couldn't be up front in disclosing everything about what components of your system will be changed with any given update. It's when they say an update fixes a specific problem, and then also install windows genuine advantage behind the scenes that we have a problem.
Blindly trusting a third party, especially one with a track record like Microsoft, with updating your production systems may be an unwise move.
Oh, they DID have trust. Back in the MS-DOS days. Then all started, and they became too powerful for anyone (even the government) to do anything about it.
I wonder what would have happened if Digital Research had sued Microsoft (and succeeded) for crippling Windows 3.x if the underlying OS wasn't MS-DOS.
But you know what really screwed everything up? The exclusivity contracts with hardware manufacturers. You know, bundling and all that. Those things must go away, since they keep ruining competition (how can it be possible for a machine with Windows being cheaper than one without it?) Don't you hate hidden taxes?
I call bullshit on this alarmist blog. 99% of the world's Windows users don't give a shit about the updates, and will click anything that pops up on their PC. Most of them likely have no clue what "Windows update" is. The 1% that know what their doing have likely never trusted Windows/Microsoft for anything in the first place. To say that "Trust in windows update is eroding" is just a bit fud-dish.
The monopoly is part of it, but the other part of it is the whole notion of software licensing, which convinces companies like Microsoft that not only do they own the software you're running, but the computer it's running on.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It may be obvious to us, but not to the general population. Remember that this is a ZDNet article. People reading ZDNet are in the majority, Windows users who don't know Microsoft's evil tricks as much as we do. I'm glad that columnists write these articles once in a while, to make people realize Microsoft is not the "quality assured" company they pretend to be.
If we want to evangelize about open source/gnu linux, articles from "relatively neutral" parties such as this one are a very good resource.
1) Didn't even think about rebooting my box by itself, regardless of configuration
2) Installed updates when I turned my computer on, not off - if I'm turning it off, then any second I'm going to be slinging the machine in my backpack, and jumping on my motorbike. Last I heard, Microsoft didn't possess the magical mystical powers required to ensure a hard drive works perfectly in these conditions.
3) Fucked off when I press the "I don't want to reboot now" button, instead of pestering me every 30 seconds like a bloody 4 year old.
None of these should require registry tweaks or policy hacks - they should all be *defaults*.
I think they were talking about how you do not have to pay for the patch.
I don't have to pay for my Linux patches. Where is that going on? I'd like to see that scam in action.
Microsoft has a company to run.
They offer the least possible features that the market allows for the highest possible price they can fetch. Indeed, Microsoft is a Marketing company that employs a legion of developers. The product, for the most part, is testament to that. No innovation to speak of and more license restrictions in the next product.
Let's unwind the propaganda a bit.
1. The average useful OSS project is not a headless zombie with a bunch of peace-loving anarchists running around it. There's somebody that has FULL control of the project. In fact they all have better organization than all of the big companies I've ever worked for.
I know that Microsoft in particular has quite a bit invested in spreading the headless-zombie-anarchy idea around but it's just not true.
You are paying too much for what Microsoft offers and have been for over a decade. Please take a step back and examine the situation with a little more rationality. You'll be much better off without Microsoft.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Surprise, surprise.
As Bruce Schneier points out, the problem is not that Microsoft can install updates on your computer without asking, but as soon as it gets cracked, then soon every script kiddy on the planet will also be able to do so.
Then you're really going to be screwed.
-mike
-- "So, what's the deal with Auntie Gerschwitz et all?"
I don't think you understand the issue here. The issue is that MS users who chose not to get automatic updates got an automatic update anyway. This is a matter of trust. I don't know why you are talking about NDAs. Companies that didn't want automatic updates from MS had an automatic update installed. NDAs are neither here nor there. I also don't understand the relevance of Linux to this. It's not a matter of what was in the update. It's the fact that it was installed automatically despite the fact that users had expressed a preference not to install it automatically.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
And, you know, even some geeks like having things that just work. There was a time when I'd build my own computer and spend every waking hour monkeying with the thing to make it perform 0.5% better in a specific task. Maybe I'm just getting too old for that, or maybe my interests have just shifted, but this Macbook I have, which doesn't really require anything of me to perform properly every day, is a needed breath of fresh air.
I think the big shift for me was during college, when my Frankenstein computer failed during the one particularly hectic spring essay rush. I bought a Dell laptop because it was cheap and could be at my door in three days. Since then, I've never built a "main" computer again. I still have my HTPC project and a few other things, but it's really, really nice to know that I have one computer that will always work when I need to actually, you know, DO something that matters. No driver headaches, no dodgy hardware, no constant configuration. I open the lid, do my thing, then close the lid. Although I have become a real Mac fan, this isn't a pro-Mac post at all... it's a post in strong favour of things that don't require me to screw around. If I WANT to screw around, I will, but at least the choice is mine now. I've put that same principle into play in what I drive, too. I have a 2000 Mazda Protege, which never fails, as my daily driver. Then, I have a 1988 Nissan Pathfinder with 31" tires, a lift, etc for those days where I feel like tinkering. That truck sits apart for weeks if I don't feel like getting my hands dirty, and you know why? Because it can -- I don't need it to get me to work. It's beautiful. If you can afford it, life really is better when you don't have to drive the project (both literally and as a metaphor for computers).
Frankly, even if it costs me my Geek Card, I'm never going back to the "old way."
-
Inventor of the term 'pardon my French'.
Not only that, but the grandparent post deliberately, I suppose, obscured the issue. The issue is trust, not honest mistakes.
Microsoft's recent sneaky update has caused severe problems: Microsoft Stealth Update and Windows XP repair don't mix. If Microsoft weren't sneaky, at least customers could deal with the mistakes more easily.
Quote from the ZDNet article: "The overall impression that I get as someone who deals directly with the company is that Microsoft believes that it is right and anyone making a fuss is ultimately wrong". It's not surprising to me that billionaire virtual monopolists would have developed arrogance.
However, that's not the REAL problem, in my opinion. The real problem is that people think that Microsoft is a software company that is routinely abusive. But it isn't. Actually, Microsoft is an abuse company that uses software as a means of delivering abuse. I think a lot of people agree that, if you look at it that way, Microsoft is excellent at what it does.
I've often wondered with the slow Vista uptake whether MS would torpedo XP via updates that actually degrade performance or break things deliberately. It's weird, I have a number of XP boxes with very good reliablity, but in the last 3 months I have had a number of software related failures on nearly all of them - most requiring re-installs. The drivers haven't changed, usage hasn't changed, the only thing that has changed is the MS updates. No hard evidence, but many fellow admins I know have seen similar oddities occur (esp after the stealth update)...
It could just be coincidence as it would be a very dangerous move by MS, yet I wouldn't put it past them. Users who are having to fuck around are surely more likely to consider switching OS. For the bulk of desktop users that would be Vista.
The best fastest way to get people out a building is to set it on fire...
While most end-users get their software from their distro, where do you think the distros get it from?
The vast majority of packages are maintained separate from any distro, and they're pulled into each distro by the distro maintainers. The real reason why the the linux updates are more reliable is that the developers can _talk to each other_. Most packages have mailing lists, newsgroups, forums, etc. and solutions can be developed in cooperation with the other developers.
As for the buck-passing thing...it happens with linux too. The application team blames the platform team which blames the distro which blames glibc, and they in turn say that the distro needs to upgrade to the latest version, which isn't compatible with the distro's compiler....and so it goes.
Microsoft betraying user trust on several separate occasions and this behavior is eroding customer confidence in the entire update mechanism.'
I think there are probably a lot of people on Slashdot that got burned early by WindowsUpdate, and never trusted it again. I've been burned a few times, and now I leave automatic updates off unless I have a good reason to leave it on. Nevertheless, I really believe that Microsoft is making a mistaking screwing around with this particular sacred cow, although I'm sure the temptation to abuse it was just irresistible. As Wally from Dilbert put it, "What would be the other reasons for having power?"
Still, if our good friends Joe Average and Joe Sixpack get it into their heads that WindowsUpdate has a significant chance of blowing away their systems, they're going to just turn it off and to Hell with patches and fixes. And you know what? They'd be right to do so. This is a stupid, dangerous game that Microsoft is playing.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.