Microsoft updating files without permission? (n/a?)

Topic

New Reply

Just today I read about this in a newsletter I receive (Brian Livingston’s Windows Secrets) – the online article is located here:
http://windowssecrets.com/2007/09/13/01-Mi…t-users-consent%5B/url%5D
While the main topic of the article is enough cause for concern, it made me think of something else that’s been bothering me about Windows (XP) for the past few years. I’ve been using a patching service instead of Windows Update for about a year now – it’s a little bit more effort but I feel more in control of the patches that get applied. The last time I reinstalled Windows XP I was really perplexed by the number of times Windows kept asking me to apply the same two patches over and over again – one for Windows Update and the other to basically check to see if my copy of Windows is legit. I got them both at least 3 times within the first week of the fresh install. A quote from the above article struck a note with me (the quote is a statement from Microsoft):
[indent]

---

Windows Update Software 7.0.6000.381 is an update to Windows Update itself. It is an update for both Windows XP and Windows Vista. Unless the update is installed, Windows Update won’t work, at least in terms of searching for further updates. Normal use of Windows Update, in other words, is blocked until this update is installed.

---

[/indent]
Is it just me, or is it ridiculous to think people will believe that there is a patch to make sure Windows Update will still work? i’m not going to word this very well, but if Update has worked all along, and now there is a patch that we are supposed to install because Update won’t work any more if we don’t – well, why won’t it work without it? It makes me, at least, think that there’s something more to the patch than what they say. Just why will Update not work any more? As far as I can understand, either a previous patch caused problems with Update, and Microsoft isn’t willing to admit it – or they’ve done something to deliberately disable Update just so they can push this patch on us. And unless there’s something more to this patch than they’re saying, that’s a complete waste of their time. (Not that they haven’t done that before, of course.)

Reply | Quote

Replies

Personally, I think that this is a “tempest in a teapot” (although I’m sure that others will disagree).

In the past, Microsoft has “updated” Windows Update a few times each year. Granted, users were notified of the update (at least those who chose the “notify me but don’t install” option). But if a user chose NOT to install the update, their Windows Update would no longer function. This was just part of the ongoing process of refining Windows Update to function more reliably and to more reliably identify piracy.

You ask “Just why will Update not work any more?” I guess the short answer is because MS has decided that they will not allow the “old” version to work any more (just as with previous versions in years past). I guess the “burning” question is – should this be done without notifying the user? I personally don’t have any problem with this being done. I am going to have to accept the update either automatically or by confirming that I want the update. Either way (if I want to continue using Windows Update) I don’t have a choice. Updating this automatically simply saves me the trouble of “confirming” that I want this required update installed.

This is simply my opinion, and I’m sure others will weigh in on this.

Reply | Quote

Microsoft can certainly make any patch or change a requirement for Windows/Microsoft update to continue to work. The whole point of this is that Microsoft is pushing these patches even if you have Automatic Updates turned off completely. If they do it for WU/MU what’s to stop them from doing it for some other patch/fix/change they deem important. The whole point of turning AU off is to be able to completely control your world. I personally don’t agree with turning AU off completely but some want this ability. Once again this is MS not abiding by the user specifying no automatic updates.

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote

Joe,
I am one who has AU turned off.
This is so I can selectively accept or deny a particular hotfix. For example, I don’t use Instant Messaging, so why install an update for something I don’t use?

So far as Windows Update is concerned, you DO have an option. Either take the update or not. If not, WU doesn’t work anymore. There is your choice.

If MS found a problem or improvement to WU, then it should be an automatic patch.
I don’t see the big deal about this at all. ( despite claims of invasion of privacy or big brother, etal. )

Reply | Quote

The whole point of the article is that MS is pushing WU/MU updates and installing without asking or notifying the user. You do not have a choice. I agree that it is not a huge deal with WU/MU but if they do it for that what’s to stop them from deciding some other update is critical and you must have it? There can always be a simple check made when WU/MU is accessed about whether the most current software is installed. As a matter of fact I believe that is already done. So, if it is already done I don’t see the need for a forced, sneaky update without the users’ knowledge.

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote

Joe,
I can see what you are saying but I think we are going off on divergent tangents or interpretations here. So, enough of this beating a dead horse.

Reply | Quote

Joe

One point that was made by comments in response to an article on this topic in The Register, that if Microsoft could push “stealth updates” to a PC even though updates had been turned off, there was clearly a potential way in for the naughty people to use the same mechanism. And what proportion of PCs have updates turned off completely, anyway?

Reply | Quote

Yes, there is the chance of a ‘bad person’ pushing an update. But the main point to me is that if I say I don’t want my system updated automatically then it shouldn’t be – period.

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote

You could try “Blocking” Windows Update in your firewall, but every time you want to install a update you would need to unblock it.

DaveA I am so far behind, I think I am First
Genealogy....confusing the dead and annoying the living

Reply | Quote

I’m not going to block it. I’m not questioning Microsoft’s right or need to require the AU software updates to be installed. It is just disturbing that even though I may have opted out of AU that Microsoft has determined that it is OK to update anyway and not let me know.

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote

John,

I read the same article in Livingston’s newsletter but I think he is being a little TOO picky about it. The update is for Windows UPDATE itself, so why would you NOT want the update?

YES, it is a little presumptuous in itself but that’s about it, in my mind.

I agree with John entirely.

Reply | Quote

I to agree with John, these updates to the Update program are a on going issue. We have been getting them since day one of Windows Update. So what is the big deal?

Have many of these other types such as AV, spam killer and etc are doing the same thing everyday,but I do NOT see anyone complain about them?

DaveA I am so far behind, I think I am First
Genealogy....confusing the dead and annoying the living

Reply | Quote

I liked the discussion in windows secrets of using eventvwr.msc This was new to me.
Has anyone used the program by Olivier Lombart called Tiny Watcher?

If someone truly wanted to be in control of the update what are the options? Is zone alam an option?

Reply | Quote

Most likely, you have no options.

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote

Some further info on this.
Latest issue of Windows Secrets reveals a problem with the Update when users have done a Repair install and then try updating. Seems there are 6 DLLs that are not registered when this update runs.

For more information and a fix for this go to SCOTT DUNN

It’s down near the bottom of the page.

Reply | Quote

Sorry – over the weekend, my little updater came on at least once every 15 minutes to rather impolitely inform me that “critical updates” were available. Each time, it pointed to the malicious software removal tool (no thank you), and each time we clicked the “don’t inform us of this again.” 15 minutes later? Whatever we were doing was interrupted by the little yellow “warning” box, and we got into the loop again.
It finally apparently gave up after 4 hours or so.

So do we have a bad WAMU or a good WAMU?

Reply | Quote

Have you tried to manually go to the Windows Update site and run the update check. When it shows the malware removal tool, click on “hide this Update”?

This is SUPPOSED to hide the update and not nag you for this “critical” update.

Reply | Quote

Been there, done that, got the….yes, occasionally I go there just to make sure that my cat hasn’t been creative with the keyboard and accidentally cancelled everything (yes, kitty, no more E-Bay for you!).

I didn’t think to do it this time and thankfully, it has finally gone away for now, but next time, I’ll try to remember.

Reply | Quote

This is going to an unpopular idea but here goes. I learned long ago to refuse to update Windows. I’m talking about the constant patches, some of which work and some of which don’t work. Especially the security patches. No sooner does a security patch come out, and 10,000 naughty people are out there figuring out how to defeat it. So what is the point? Restore points are a big help when Microsoft sends out a lemon. But I just avoid the whole mess. I was content with XP home with service release 1. Every thing worked great. I had very few problems. But then I found I needed the update to Windows Movie Maker and so was forced to install SR2. I created a restore point, made an Acronis back up, held my breath and installed it from the free CD. And it worked. Since then I have installed nothing from Microsoft. And I see no need to. I did solve some nasty internet problems by installing and using FireFox. Last week I got a surprise when Microsoft’s firewall popped up. I have had that turned off since buying XP. Maybe MS is installing updates on my computers behind my back. I don’t know. But I have the update feature and the warnings all turned off. And haven’t had to seek help on this forum for quite a while now. If something isn’t broke, don’t fix it. Just my humble opinion.

Reply | Quote

Good luck to you!
May all your problems be small ones.

Reply | Quote

I have installed ALL of the XP updates and all of the Vista updates. I have experienced NO ill effects do to these updates. Note also that SP3 for XP will be coming out in the near future.

I have seen machines where the updates are done selective and then when there are some needed updates and they will not install, Why, because a earlier one is not yet installed.

DaveA I am so far behind, I think I am First
Genealogy....confusing the dead and annoying the living

Reply | Quote

Two things. First, most of the time the 10,000 naughty people you referenced are not trying to circumvent a patch. They are taking advantage of a now known vulnerability hoping to catch PCs before they are updated. However, if you see no need to install updates more power to you. Second, if you uninstall a third party firewall most of the time the uninstall process will turn on the Windows firewall just as the install process turns it off. BTW, no matter what your setting the Windows FIrewall is on for a period of time during the boot process. There used to be a small window of opportunity when the system was being initialized that no firewall was active. Therefore, even if you turn the Windows Firewall off it will run for a short period during network initialization.

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote