And none of those reports indicate that person understands the setting I mentioned. Just like the PC World "trick" notification story, where not only do they not know about this setting, they don't even know what a notification is.
I wonder how much difference it makes as long as you aren't using IE for Internet browsing. The browser is really where vulnerabilities are generally targeted, most of the rest is either download a fake application or just using mechanisms already present in the OS. Those aren't necessarily patchable.
I'm not taking it entirely on faith, I've tested it. Now they could change it in the future for sure. But then they could move their C&C around so the hw firewall becomes difficult to maintain, unless you block everything. I am willing to say, it's very unlikely they would alter the Windows Firewall to undermine a 'disallow all' setting. Sure they would sneak it into the default profiles, probably already have.
You can use the Windows Firewall to block all outgoing traffic except from chrome and firefox (plus your DNS) and then only allow a few select services for as long as it takes to update.
Have you ever seen Chinese TV? Some of those shows and networks already have pop-up ad crud all over the place on top of the shows. If Samsung wants to complete in China, this probably is not as much of an outrage as it is to US or European customers.
We see a lot of futility in all sorts of endeavors like this. My theory is things like this are trying to defend the source against lawsuits. (in this case Google/YouTube). If it came down to a court case, they could appeal to the "reasonable person" standard. As in "we tried X and Y like any reasonable person would." Even though they know it is futile, it might be bad to go into court saying "we didn't try it because we thought it was futile" then try to explain to a technology illiterate judge why it was futile. Probably cheaper to just make some effort, even though clearly futile.
Do you know of any cases where folks with the 'Give me recommended updates the same way I receive important updates' option is unchecked and the Windows 10 upgrade has been an issue? That's what Microsoft says to do, and I haven't had any problems with it. That doesn't mean everyone had the same experience, certainly, but from the news stories and jabber here it seems not many people understand this setting exists or its theoretical relationship to the upgrade.
No, but so far no one has answered the question except that one AC above. There is a check box in the Update settings to disable "recommended" updates. These aren't the same updates as the monthy critical IE update and all the other security updates. I have this check box unchecked on all my Win 7 hosts and there is no problem with updates or nags of any sort. This is exactly the course that Microsoft recommends, as seen in the now infamous "trick" notification. It seems a lot of people don't understand this, since they seem unable to answer my question as to whether or not they had followed this option when all their awful stuff happened. You haven't answered it either. Is there something about that explanation that is unclear?
As far as I can see, people are still suffering this problem because they don't understand the directions MS keeps trying to get them to read. It seems like a lot of people don't know the difference between recommended updates and the critical updates (or "important" updates as the control panel calls them).
Why not just turn off recommended updates like the latest generation of notification from MS suggests? Critical security updates will still get applied.
Why do you say disabling recommended updates is an extreme? I always disable them. They aren't the same as the critical security updates, they are just various driver updates, langauge packs, and the like. And the update to Windows 10. I've never had any issues with Windows 10 upgrades or nagging notifications since I've had recommended (Again, not critical) updates turned off the whole time.
maybe you can clarify this mystery for me. Critical updates and reocmmended updates are two different categories. The Winodws 10 update is a recommended update, not a critical update. So if one turns off recommended updates, one does not get the Windows 10 upgrade. But the critical updates still come down fine. So how do you go from installing recommended updates AND critical updates, to not installing any updates at all? Is it just an issue of mistrust?
To avoid the push to update to Windows 10, I expect. Recommended updates aren't especially valuable from what I've seen. These are not the various patch Tuesday security updates, the recommended updates are mostly useless things like keyboard driver updates.
Oh I agree it's an annoying approach by MS. But why are you still opted in to recommended updates after the first two or three cycles? They've made it clear that anyone with recommended updates enabled is going to get the upgrade. Declining any specific instance of it isn't going to prevent that. I've always run without recommended updates and am problem-free.
No, I'm talking about the notification that says "Since you have recommended updates enabled you will get the recommended update. Go here to disable recommended updates." There is no warning where clicking the X installs the update, in that case it merely lets the update proceed as scheduled, much as anyone would expect when closing a notification.
They do have the user's permission. It's called being subscribed to Recommended updates. MS generates tons of warnings on the host to warn users that they will get the update and indicates where to go to disable recommended updates.
The problem used to be that an update was a full OS reload. I would not pay anything for that. I don't want them. I've had updates break Wifi, reduce my data speeds to half, take away root access, introduce pointless interface changes, gratuitously rearrange where settings and controls can be found, add unwanted applications and subscriptions to middle of the night alerts about missing kids hundreds of miles away, and more. Once I get things set up how I like, I turn off all update checks.
Now if we are talking security patches only, that's a different story. Google has been trying to move towards this model, in part by moving up some components to use the Google store.
I had the same thought. Mr Rosen doesn't seem to understand what makes a Libertarian, none (or practically none) would say that any business should be immune from torts.
Slashdot Mirror
And none of those reports indicate that person understands the setting I mentioned. Just like the PC World "trick" notification story, where not only do they not know about this setting, they don't even know what a notification is.
I wonder how much difference it makes as long as you aren't using IE for Internet browsing. The browser is really where vulnerabilities are generally targeted, most of the rest is either download a fake application or just using mechanisms already present in the OS. Those aren't necessarily patchable.
I'm not taking it entirely on faith, I've tested it. Now they could change it in the future for sure. But then they could move their C&C around so the hw firewall becomes difficult to maintain, unless you block everything. I am willing to say, it's very unlikely they would alter the Windows Firewall to undermine a 'disallow all' setting. Sure they would sneak it into the default profiles, probably already have.
You can use the Windows Firewall to block all outgoing traffic except from chrome and firefox (plus your DNS) and then only allow a few select services for as long as it takes to update.
Have you ever seen Chinese TV? Some of those shows and networks already have pop-up ad crud all over the place on top of the shows. If Samsung wants to complete in China, this probably is not as much of an outrage as it is to US or European customers.
We see a lot of futility in all sorts of endeavors like this. My theory is things like this are trying to defend the source against lawsuits. (in this case Google/YouTube). If it came down to a court case, they could appeal to the "reasonable person" standard. As in "we tried X and Y like any reasonable person would." Even though they know it is futile, it might be bad to go into court saying "we didn't try it because we thought it was futile" then try to explain to a technology illiterate judge why it was futile. Probably cheaper to just make some effort, even though clearly futile.
888888? Must be Chinese.
Do you know of any cases where folks with the 'Give me recommended updates the same way I receive important updates' option is unchecked and the Windows 10 upgrade has been an issue? That's what Microsoft says to do, and I haven't had any problems with it. That doesn't mean everyone had the same experience, certainly, but from the news stories and jabber here it seems not many people understand this setting exists or its theoretical relationship to the upgrade.
No, but so far no one has answered the question except that one AC above. There is a check box in the Update settings to disable "recommended" updates. These aren't the same updates as the monthy critical IE update and all the other security updates. I have this check box unchecked on all my Win 7 hosts and there is no problem with updates or nags of any sort. This is exactly the course that Microsoft recommends, as seen in the now infamous "trick" notification. It seems a lot of people don't understand this, since they seem unable to answer my question as to whether or not they had followed this option when all their awful stuff happened. You haven't answered it either. Is there something about that explanation that is unclear?
An apt car analogy!
That's interesting. Thanks for making a cogent reply to this question I've been asking since the whole business started.
Boy, PC World, and its dozens of tracking includes on the page, are really milking this Windows10 story.
As far as I can see, people are still suffering this problem because they don't understand the directions MS keeps trying to get them to read. It seems like a lot of people don't know the difference between recommended updates and the critical updates (or "important" updates as the control panel calls them).
Why not just turn off recommended updates like the latest generation of notification from MS suggests? Critical security updates will still get applied.
Why do you say disabling recommended updates is an extreme? I always disable them. They aren't the same as the critical security updates, they are just various driver updates, langauge packs, and the like. And the update to Windows 10. I've never had any issues with Windows 10 upgrades or nagging notifications since I've had recommended (Again, not critical) updates turned off the whole time.
maybe you can clarify this mystery for me. Critical updates and reocmmended updates are two different categories. The Winodws 10 update is a recommended update, not a critical update. So if one turns off recommended updates, one does not get the Windows 10 upgrade. But the critical updates still come down fine. So how do you go from installing recommended updates AND critical updates, to not installing any updates at all? Is it just an issue of mistrust?
North Korea again? What next, a story about North Korea forcing people to upgrade to Windows 10?
To avoid the push to update to Windows 10, I expect. Recommended updates aren't especially valuable from what I've seen. These are not the various patch Tuesday security updates, the recommended updates are mostly useless things like keyboard driver updates.
Oh I agree it's an annoying approach by MS. But why are you still opted in to recommended updates after the first two or three cycles? They've made it clear that anyone with recommended updates enabled is going to get the upgrade. Declining any specific instance of it isn't going to prevent that. I've always run without recommended updates and am problem-free.
No, I'm talking about the notification that says "Since you have recommended updates enabled you will get the recommended update. Go here to disable recommended updates." There is no warning where clicking the X installs the update, in that case it merely lets the update proceed as scheduled, much as anyone would expect when closing a notification.
They do have the user's permission. It's called being subscribed to Recommended updates. MS generates tons of warnings on the host to warn users that they will get the update and indicates where to go to disable recommended updates.
The problem used to be that an update was a full OS reload. I would not pay anything for that. I don't want them. I've had updates break Wifi, reduce my data speeds to half, take away root access, introduce pointless interface changes, gratuitously rearrange where settings and controls can be found, add unwanted applications and subscriptions to middle of the night alerts about missing kids hundreds of miles away, and more. Once I get things set up how I like, I turn off all update checks.
Now if we are talking security patches only, that's a different story. Google has been trying to move towards this model, in part by moving up some components to use the Google store.
I had the same thought. Mr Rosen doesn't seem to understand what makes a Libertarian, none (or practically none) would say that any business should be immune from torts.
I don't think you need a password to log in as AC.
Why would you opt in to recommended updates on a business critical machine?