Microsoft Updates Your Copy Of Windows Without Your Consent

Microsoft has begun patching files on Windows XP and Vista without users' knowledge, even when the users have turned off auto-updates.

http://www.windowssecrets.com/2007/09/13/0...t-users-consent

Sounds like these were updates limited to updating Windows Update itself (I like the sound of "Windows Update is keeping its Update system up to date"). The question is, if these were just minor changes unrelated to Windows, just the Update application, why do it under the radar? The whole point of Windows Update is the clear transparency of what is going on. Microsoft is under no legal obligation to tell their users about updates, It's kind of like a courtesy to their users. There doesn't seem to be any logical explanation why they would make something like this intentionally secretive. The most rational explanation would be the incompetence / tone-deaf cluessness of one division in Microsoft just being too lazy / uncaring about something they figured no one else would care about or even bother noticing, rather than some devious underhanded sneaky secret updating Master Plan.

Turning off Automatic Updates isn't enough. You have to disable BITS (Background Intelligent Transfer Service) and Automatic Update services from services.msc to solve the issue.

There's probably something in the EULA that covers this as being a legit practice.
By agreeing to Microsoft's EULA, you essentially agree to "rent" your computer from Microsoft.
Don't like it? Don't use Windows.

People who work in networking would get ticked about this. If Microsoft decides that they want to update part of the OS, no matter what it is, but does not inform anyone that they are doing it, security teams that notice the activity will stop a legitimate service and spend valuable resources following a false positive. That's a waste of their time, energy, and can lead to a "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" situation where certain activity that is undocumented is assumed to be legitimate because Microsoft has done so in the past, yet it is actually a security breach.
For those who work in the security field, this is a similar slap in the face that desktop users get when some company installs "root kit" like software.

There is yet another downside to the silent updates. The patching process could awaken your laptop from standby mode at some wee hour during the night while stored in an insulated laptop bag. Because the update process fails to put the computer back into standby after the installation, the laptop's battery will be exhausted by the time you discover the problem later the next day. Other than that, the fact that the computer is running in a bag for so long could damage the machine and might even pose a fire hazard.
I don't expect Microsoft to be perfect (congratulations Bill for managing people's quality expectations level towards the low end). But because of Microsoft's very human mistakes with some previous updates, a lot of people understandably want to do their homework before installing every patch Microsoft offers. If the company's own software settings can't be trusted to provide that level of control, users will continue to seek alternatives.

 

 

 

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

I have to say that is quite a interesting read and when I check out the event log I found it interesting that all these updates where happening without us knowing about, I would have to agree that whatever agreements you made when installing the operating system. It don't bother me as much just as long as they are not screwing me out of hard drive space like they are with vista and the winsxs folder I am fine.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

I thought this was a "no duh!" situations. I've already noticed this for years. Not new at all. You do also realize that all you're doing to "buy" Windows is just the right to run it, you don't actually own the operating system. Therefore, they are in no legal obligations to say anything.

xboxrulz

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

Of course. But with all the Microsoft bashing going on, you'd think users would be aware of this sort of stuff. It keeps popping up in one form or another, but every time it does, everyone's shocked. Same thing with gmail. "It's not secure??? OMG, why didn't anyone tell me about this before?? I better move to Yahoo. They're not secure either?? " and the list goes on. You don't want others reading your mail, use encryption. You don't want Microsoft doing stuff to your machine without your consent, get a good 3rd party firewall and block all their connections. Or just unplug your computer. That's the only 100% safe option.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

I don't really mind about the updates, i have automatic updates enabled and i just let them run. The only time when i don't like it is if it's downloading large updates and it begins to lag the internet. I think it doesn't have any sort of throttling on it so you can use your net normally.
Another thing that's annoying is when you HAVE to restart your computer after installing your updates sometimes, i like to do it just before i go to sleep.

My current auto update settings are download when they are avaliable but manually install them, so i can control the above ^ problem.

-HellFire

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

Exactly, that's what I do for Windows Update. Until more people create more games for Linux and more multimedia application for it. I'm pretty much stuck to Windows, which is a constant drag.

xboxrulz

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

ive always known about all this. i have windows update set to (i think) download them automatically but ask me to install

although you are actually buying the operating system, just a license, i still think we all deserve to have a like independent computer without those people from microsoft fiddling with it without letting us know.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

Is there anything wrong with them updating your computer without your knowledge? I mean, it's not like they're taking your credit card numbers and spending your money, eating your food, sleeping in your bed, stealing your mp3s, or anything like that. They're updating the computer so that your system is more secure. That's an interesting concept of just buying a license to run your computer with their Operating System. I would say that if you really want to go with a company who cares about you, get a Mac. The only problem is that it can cost more.

Get a version of linux if you want something you have a great amount of control over.

In the case of gmail and yahoo, nothing comes for free, so suck it up or go find another provider.

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

As long as it doesn't cause any problems, in many ways i would prefer that my copy of windows just get updated seemlesly, I mean I don't really need to know about the updates that much as long as they are making the product work better. The only way this would be a problem is if the updates started taking huge amounts of space, or slowing the computer down a lot, or something along those lines where the update caused issues, but I haven't had a windows update cause issues for me for a couple of years now, and I have been using automatic updates for a while now because I just forget to go to the windows update site.

So I would go on the side that I think microsoft should just push updates out and not have a windows update thing, other than for corporate users where microsoft should give more control to the system administrators as to what updates they want to push out. (after all I can see them getting upset when an update gets pushed out that somehow messes up their system...)

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)

It seriously doesn't matter. However, if you're just arguing about the concept, then I agree, Microsoft should actually let you install the update you want and to control the computer since it's your computer and not theirs.

xboxrulz

Comment/Reply (w/o sign-up)