| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft changes Windows files on user PCs without permission, researchers say | |
|
||
| Time: 09:50 EST/14:50 GMT | News Source: ComputerWorld | Posted By: Jonathan Tigner | ||
|
Microsoft Corp. has started updating files on computers running Windows XP and Vista, even when users have explicitly disabled the operating systems' automatic update feature, researchers said today. Scott Dunn, an editor at the "Windows Secrets" newsletter, said that nine files in XP and Vista -- but not the same files in each operating system -- have been changed by Windows Update, the Microsoft update mechanism, without displaying the usual notification or permission dialog box. The files, said Dunn, are related to the XP and Vista versions of Windows Update (WU) itself. "We started hearing from readers that Windows was modifying files in the middle of the night, even when Windows Update was turned off," Dunn said today. Some machines' event logs pinpointed Aug. 24 as the date when the invisible updates began, but on one of Dunn's personal machines, the log showed the changes taking place this week. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 219 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:02:32 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2960 (68.100.112.199) at 9/13/2007 10:40:17 AM |
|
This one is gonna be fun to watch!
We'll file this one under "All your computer are all belong to us" TL |
| #2 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 9/13/2007 11:22:40 AM |
| The apologists will now start spinning how it's in your best interests, or how MS reserves the right to access your system and do whatever because it's their OS. While I usually follow Hanlon's Razor, MS has proven that it can be really smart, but it has a track record of doing sneaky things. If WU components need to be updated, why can't that happen when you visit WU? Why the backdoor update, especially when some users (like me) turn off auto-updates and handle it manually? Just more MS shenanigans. |
| #3 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 9/13/2007 12:22:42 PM |
|
Boy this is really, really, really, really stooopid of Microsoft, if true.
First, there is no real need for this and second, it's just bad form - very bad form. Ok, we get it, any poor soul on the wrong end of a false WGA positive is keenly aware of how bad that feels and how hard it is to work around... but this is different... this is clearly taking very unfair and inappropriate advantage - no matter the justification, this one is wrong and needs to stop right now. If WU needs any form of modification - and it so often and frustratingly does.... then it needs to be right up front and do it on demand, or for those that HAVE elected to use automatic updates. Where they have not agreed, then it should be hands the freak off. This is exactly the kind of stuff that is going to cause the DoJ to favorably consider extending the monitoring of the consent decree... and it well should. One has to ASK permission to come into one's space and if Microsoft expects people to respect their space and property, then they need to step way up and do the same for all others - instead, this sort of thing and WGA confirm that bean counting weenies and equally score keeping lawyers are running the show. They need a wake up call and a slap across the snout which says, "It's about the customer, stupid!" - where there is a decision point between customer interest and shareholder value, they better wise up and realize that serving customer interests drives shareholder value. Microsoft, don't spin it. Admit that this is wrong - however well intended. Apologize, sincerely, and prove it won't happen again. |
| #4 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 9/13/2007 12:28:47 PM |
| #3: Well said. |
| #5 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 9/13/2007 12:45:58 PM |
| There is something else going on, as my system is set to not auto-update and I don't have the updated WU files. I've already patched up yesterday and I STILL don't have the updated WU files. Very strange. |
| #6 By 3653 (65.80.181.153) at 9/13/2007 12:50:05 PM |
|
Wasn't this the result of the big DDoS attack (update.microsoft.com or something like that) around 3 years ago? Remember? All these zombie machines were gonna hit the windows update site. So, msft changed the domain real quick and to head this off in the future they added this bit of code? Anyone else have a less vague recollection of this. If so, fill in the blanks.
[edited] for latch. This post was edited by mooresa56 on Thursday, September 13, 2007 at 12:51. |
| #7 By 2459 (69.22.120.70) at 9/13/2007 2:02:21 PM |
|
That was the Blaster worm.
I can't find any info about WU client changes because of that incident. The changes were serverside -- taking the targeted redirect site offline and using Akamai to distribute the traffic. If anything, this could just be a bug in one of the WU client versions, or another app triggering it. This post was edited by n4cer on Thursday, September 13, 2007 at 14:03. |
| #8 By 3653 (65.80.181.153) at 9/13/2007 4:35:22 PM |
|
thx n4cer. it turns out your right, but I still think they made client-side changes. Because I think they decided to point clients to a domain, instead of an ip address... from that point on.
who knows. doesn't matter now. |
| #9 By 32132 (142.32.208.232) at 9/13/2007 4:37:05 PM |
| "The answer is simple: any user who chooses to use Windows Update either expected updates to be installed or to at least be notified that updates were available. Had we failed to update the service automatically, users would not have been able to successfully check for updates and, in turn, users would not have had updates installed automatically or received expected notifications. That result would not only fail to meet customer expectations but even worse, that result would lead users to believe that they were secure even though there was no installation and/or notification of upgrades. To avoid creating such a false impression, the Windows Update client is configured to automatically check for updates anytime a system uses the WU service, independent of the selected settings for handling updates (for example, “check for updates but let me choose whether to download or install them”). This has been the case since we introduced the automatic update feature in Windows XP. In fact, WU has auto-updated itself many times in the past." |
| #10 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 9/13/2007 5:43:18 PM |
|
Ok - so MS is clearer now and has publicly stated that they ARE NOT/NOT accessing or updating systems where a person has NOT/NOT elected to use automatic updates.
Good. Very good news. As at, http://blogs.technet.com/mu/archive/2007/09/13/how-windows-update-keeps-itself-up-to-date.aspx and posted here on Awin. Now, I wonder what has made so many conclude otherwise? Could it be the Bits service and ho wit is used in some way, or could they have been mistaken and somehow had updates enabled? Regardless, it is proper for them to have responded - now about that clarity part. It should have been a lot more transparent that WU itself was/would be updated. |
| #11 By 7760 (12.155.143.50) at 9/13/2007 6:22:33 PM |
| Oh, boo hoo. So XP and Vista are calling home to MS and updating their WU engines from time to time to make sure that they're up-to-date. Do people realize how many other programs on a typical computer do that, usually without the user knowing it? Even if you're not letting AU install the OS updates, having the WU engine stay up-to-date ensures that you'll be able to install them when you choose to. Imagine the stink that people would raise if AU failed to work when they re-enabled automatic installation. People want things both ways. |
| #12 By 2960 (68.100.112.199) at 9/14/2007 7:27:53 AM |
|
#11,
Don't matter. It's not their computer, it's ours. That's the bottom line. WE make the decision. We don't need them making it for us. Can you imagine where that would lead if left unchecked? This particular case looks like it may not have legs, but there are others that probably do and it's good this gets brought out into the open. Bought an OEM PC recently? You almost need to order additional net lines to handle all the phoning-home a stock PC does without the users permission. I once had to set up a Sony Vaio for a partner. Normally, I would build an Image from scratch, install all the corporate software, tune it, then provide the PC with the custom re-image discs. But in this case the Partner bought the machine for all the special multimedia options, and I was ordered to start with the Sony factory load and work downwards, uninstalling only what was absolutely necessary. It was a nightmare. VPN would not work. Custom software would not work. Almost anything to do with corporate communications would not work. And the thing was slow as hell, even on a 100mbit corporate pipe to the internet. I did some investigating and there were as many as 18 TCP/IP channels opened up to the internet going to various manufacturers servers. After two days of ripping out software, I finally got it stable. This is why WE must demand control of OUR computers. If we don't, you'll get walked all over... TL |
| #13 By 3653 (65.80.181.153) at 9/17/2007 2:11:29 AM |
| techlarry, are you trying out for a local play? cause you a truly a DRAMA queen. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 219 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:02:32 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
