Service Pack blocker

[saphalline]

Rumour on the grapevine is that M$ is creating SP blockers for the big two coming up. You can apparently download and install these blockers, thus avoiding the potential headaches of WinXP SP3 and Vista SP1.

Anyone else heard about these? (I'd give links to corroborate my rumour, but I'm being lazy right now. :p)

[pentachris]

Corroboration (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=D7C9A07A-5267-4BD6-87D0-E2A72099EDB7&displaylang=en).

[mjc]

Umm...

Shouldn't Marketing get together with the update people and hammer out some sort of real strategy about this kind of stuff?

On one hand we have some parts of M$ screaming that you need to migrate/update/etc to be secure and on the other hand we have some part of M$ that knows, without a doubt, that the SPs are going to royally screw some things up...so they come up with a way to block the nearly mandatory 'automatic' update (and from the looks of it makes manually updating the only way to do it).

They are definitely starting to look like Larry, Moe and Shemp...

[Fruss Tray Ted]

Curly was the best...

[mjc]

Curly was the best...

Yes, but this is M$ we are talking about...they don't deserve Curly.

[saphalline]

They probably have enough money to license a Curly look-alike, though...

[PrntRhd]

The main users of service pack blockers are business users who have legacy/critical applications that sudden OS changes can break.

Curly is not MS property because he is "prior work", whether MS likes it or not.
:D

[saphalline]

But don't most IT departments have auto-updates turned off on all workstations anyway? Or do you mean it could be used for the master update server(s)?

[mjc]

But don't most IT departments have auto-updates turned off on all workstations anyway?

Yes, but...

how many times over the past several months was that just not enough?

I'm reading this as the SPs are going to 'stealth update' no matter what your actual settings are...if you aren't running the blocker, that is.

[pop pop]

I work for a rather large corporation. The largest in this, that, and the other field. Updates are not done automatically via M$. They are done via a server and pushed out by the server only after after they are vetted. In the past, that meant some took days or weeks to get through, some never...things like WGA.

Speaking of "stealth" updates...I have my home system set to "download and notify" but on some "Update Tuesdays" M$ has somehow changed my settings and downloaded and installed anyway. I've had to change them back. Anyone else seen that? Or do I need a new tin foil hat?

[PrntRhd]

Speaking of "stealth" updates...I have my home system set to "download and notify" but on some "Update Tuesdays" M$ has somehow changed my settings and downloaded and installed anyway. I've had to change them back. Anyone else seen that?
That is exactly what mjc is talking about.
I have 2 PCs with XP that I have control over the updates, and 2 others that seem to insist on downloading and installing and rebooting all by themselves. All 4 were set up the same way, but somehow the settings changed all by themselves.
Just remember, with Microsoft Windows, Microsoft is the ultimate ADMIN.

[pop pop]

So they get past my hardware firewall, my software firewall, and my settings. Basically, they have free and total access to my PC? Scary.

I would expect that from one of the three letter organizations...CIA, FBI, NSA...not from a "business". Maybe they're affiliated with...never mind...

[Budfred]

I believe you can set your firewall to block them, but you would need to reset to allow them when you want to do manual updates and they would sneak the stealth ones in at that point... You could download them on another computer and install them manually, but at least one computer has to be set to allow them access...

[saphalline]

how many times over the past several months was that just not enough?

I'm reading this as the SPs are going to 'stealth update' no matter what your actual settings are...if you aren't running the blocker, that is.
Just remember, with Microsoft Windows, Microsoft is the ultimate ADMIN.Ooh, good points...

Hmmm... Well then, ummm... M$ is evil! Or something. At the very least, they sort of have multiple personalities. Strange company.

[mjc]

At the very least, they sort of have multiple personalities. Strange company.

And Balmer has several of them, himself...

[saphalline]

And here I thought he was on something! What, with all the sweating...

[PrntRhd]

Ooh, good points...

Hmmm... Well then, ummm... M$ is evil! Or something. At the very least, they sort of have multiple personalities. Strange company.
I did not call them evil, I just am pointing out the MS folks have no reluctance to change the settings on customer's PCs whenever they feel like it.

[Fruss Tray Ted]

Don't be calling the kettle black if it already is...

What kind of a picture is this portraying to us of M$ if we are being advised of a software put out by them to prevent the installation of critical software they say is needed to remain safe from malware and the likes? Hmmm, like changing your personal Homepage or preferred browser?

Every time I reboot my computer lately my FF quicklaunch is relocated and when I finally find it and open it I'm asked if I want it as my preferred browser! Why can't it (Windows) be like an end user thing? We buy something and when we walk out of the store it belongs to us and we are able to customize it any way we like, and expect it to remain that way!

Every damned time something updates by them I find myself having to spend HOURS on end getting things back to just the way I want them...

MS.. the ultimate virus...

/rant

[jlreich]

Anyone actually installed the blocker yet?

[Paul Komski]

Anyone actually installed the blocker yet?

No need here to install a blocker - I have never let MS download automatically to my own PC. I don't mind about being informed but no autodownload and no autoinstall.

As far as I remember there is something in the EULA for both Win2K SP4 and WinXP SP1 that allows MS certain limited access to scan one's system. But scanning is one thing and writing is another. SP3 will be welcome when it is available for a network download and to allow for a new slipstreamed installation CD to be created. It will speed up the clean installation/all-security-updates process for client PCs no end.

[saphalline]

I wasn't saying that YOU were saying M$ is evil. ;) I was just saying that myself. Even Dr. Evil is "evil" in some way - just not as scary. :p

We buy something and when we walk out of the store it belongs to us and we are able to customize it any way we like, and expect it to remain that way!Ooh, I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. Where do you draw the line here? Are you saying that it's acceptable to "customize" an FTP program to initiate a DOS attack? To me, software customization and "ownership" is the same in both situations. How much control do you want over a license that you've purchased for some software containing a 100-page EULA!? I don't see that happening - after all, legally speaking, you agreed to everything in that EULA!

Now, if you wanna talk about open-source Linux distro's... that's another thing altogether...

[Paul Komski]

Just to be clear. Ownership of software doesn't happen when you buy such packages or download such files any more than you own the words in a book that has been purchased. The packages or files may be owned but the intellectual property is not acquired over the counter in that way. The same concepts apply to open source but the licensing is applied differently.

[pop pop]

I'll admit I haven't read the full 100 page (or whatever) EULA. Though I believe it does say M$ can scan my PC, if I agree to the EULA and continue to use the software, I darned sure don't "think" it says they can write to my system any time they see fit (outside of the updates I specifically agree to accept when I agree to accept them). Without having read the entire tome (if you don't want someone to read it, make it so long and so legalese that they won't read it or can't understand it if they do), I would assume that if I have a legal copy of an M$ OS and agree to the terms of the EULA BUT I set my system to "download and notify" or just "notify", that M$ would abide by that. I thought rumors of stealth updates were just that...rumors...till I started seeing evidence of it on my own systems. Then, I hear about it here on PCGuide. Now, eWeek and a load of others confirm that M$ admits to doing it without remorse. Well...they say they could have better informed customers :rolleyes: right.

http://www.eweek.com/slideshow_viewer/0,1205,l=&s=25950&a=221396&po=5,00.asp

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=779

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2007/09/microsofts_stealth_update_come.html

From the above Washington Post link, this just lovely tidbit:

A software update Microsoft quietly delivered to millions of PCs this summer prevents the installation of at least 80 security updates when some Windows users try to fix a problem with their computer using the software's "repair" feature, according to reports.

When "busted" for it, M$ said, well...we'll look at it and maybe reconsider...NOT! They did it again a few weeks later. This is the height of arrogance. Yes, they own the software. Yes, I only license it. But I own the stinking hardware and did not grant them free and total access. :mad:

Would Linux/Unix style security have prevented this? I think so...if you ain't root or the owner, you ain't writing to the drive.

Sony had an EULA for their root kit CDs too. They learned a corporation can't just modify an end-user's system on whim. Class action law suit anyone? If damages could be proven caused by a stealth download, it's not unreasonable. The latest update...last Tuesday...has numerous reports of rendering internet exploder useless...maybe not a bad thing there. Damaging the repair feature, as described above, is bad...very bad.

The arrogance has to cease. Drive by download, roll over scripts, root kit, stealth download...they're all malware tactics. Bahlmer's a lunatic. Gates is leaving at the right time. M$ has lost what smidgen of respect I may have held out for them. I have a feeling this would be much bigger news if it wasn't the almighty M$. It should be bigger news. It's a violation...on many levels.

At this point, as P.O.'d as I am, I will say that without some sort of public apology I'll never buy another M$ product nor will I repair machines that are infected with M$ products. I can live just fine with Linux on my home machines. At work I use Unix and Linux anyway. M$ crap makes up 10 percent of the day and I don't pay for it or maintain it.

End of rant...or maybe just the beginning. :mad: :mad: :mad:

[pop pop]

http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2007/9/17/0944/52635

I thinks this says it quite nicely...

While the wording [of the EULA] has changed a little bit, the meaning remains the same. It's all about the DRM. If Microsoft's various and sundry anti-piracy schemes are to work, it has to have the right to make changes to components of the operating system whether you want them to or not. And, however good Microsoft's intentions might be, if any of those changes happen to cripple your computer at a bad time, hey, read the EULA. It's your problem, not Microsoft's.

As Budfred says..."Caveat emptor"

[Paleo Pete]

Ownership of software doesn't happen when you buy such packages or download such files any more than you own the words in a book that has been purchased.

Excellent analogy, I like that. and true. But I agree with the opinions here that MS should not be using stealth updates. They announced several years ago, if you'll remember, that they were going to implement forced updates, it looks like they're trying.

I also agree with the idea that an Admin password should be required for all system changes, and I don't understand why MS hasn't done this. Until it's done, Windows and security are mutually exclusive. I've seen sudden changes in the system after updates before too, and not just recently. And how many times have all of you shut down Windows Messenger (IM client) just to have it reappear next time you install an update or any MS software?

This stealth update idea is a very bad one and people should be screaming. If you have your system set to notify you only, that's what it should do. Otherwise are you going to trust the company? Not me...IF they sneak updates onto your computer, what are they sneaking OUT? What other software are they sneaking in along with updates? More spyware? From what I've read so far, Vista is spyware itself.

No thanks. I'm posting this on a Linux machine, 99% of my Internet time is on Linux, 90% of everything else, and as I mentioned in another post just this morning, as soon as I can get some multitrack recording software working, my win98 box will be nothing but a game machine, Vista will NEVER be allowed in my house. Don't even bring the CD in.

[pop pop]

I also agree with the idea that an Admin password should be required for all system changes, and I don't understand why MS hasn't done this. Until it's done, Windows and security are mutually exclusive.

They haven't done it because it runs counter to their motivation...total and absolute control. You will never see them implement anything closely resembling Unix/Linux security. Never. Not without a backdoor.

This may have been going on for a while as the M$ spokesperson has said. However, I just started noticing on my machines...stupid me. They'll get locked down as tight as I can now for the remainder of the time I rent M$ malware at home.

This is such a load I can't believe it. It is truly malware tactics. It's about trespass. I don't own the words in the book. I don't own the lyrics in the song. I don't own the software. But the author and the musician do not have a right to trespass and invade my home if all I'm doing is reading it or listening to it. Software companies have no explicit or implicit right to trespass either. If they do so, I have recourse...unless they're M$, the MIAA, or RIAA...or so they think.