Tom's Guide | Tom's Hardware | Tom's Games
 |
 |
 |
Name: tonysathre
Microsoft has begun patching files on Windows XP and Vista without users' knowledge, even when the users have turned off auto-updates.
Many companies require testing of patches before they are widely installed, and businesses in this situation are objecting to the stealth patching.
"Computer security." — Oxymoron
Thanks for the link but we have seen it and discussed it in the following thread last week
http://www.computing.net/windowsxp/...
i_Xp/VistaUser
0 
old news and not entirely accurate ... if you have the automatic update SERVICE and background intelligent transfer disabled, then there is no patching, stealth or otherwise.
0
Oops, sorry. I haven't really been reading the Windows XP forum here lately so I did not know.
"Computer security." — Oxymoron
0
NP Tony :-)
BTW the author of that article - Scott Dunn - isn't done bashing silent Windows Update. He just published his third sequel to the same issue today...
Stealth Windows update prevents XP repair
i_Xp/VistaUser
0
I read a very good article in eWeek about it today.
This is the one I read today.
"Computer security." — Oxymoron
0
I've read that one too. I think the matter of MS silently updating your windows is irrelevant because your OS is preinstalled on your Dell Dimension 4550. The chance of this impacting you (and 90% of all Home-based PCs in the World) is slim because you don't have the facility to repair reinstal Windows other than to reinstate it back to factory state using Recovery CDs.
i_Xp/VistaUser
0
No, mine shipped with an OEM copy of Windows XP Home SP2. But, I have a VLK XP Pro installed on it at the moment.
"Computer security." — Oxymoron
0
Lol, yeah that's why I posted. So much for security.
Fortunately, I have the AU service always disabled. I'm going check and see what version of the AU client is currently installed on my system. If it's .381, then having the service disabled proves futile.
"Computer security." — Oxymoron
0
My AU client is still 7.0.6000.374. Looks like having the service disabled is the way to go. I was thinking about turning it back on a while ago so I didn't have to manually do it. Looks like this is just another reason to leave it disabled.
"Computer security." — Oxymoron
0
Don't despair - Zdnet blogger Adrian Kingsley-Hughes wrote a nice article HERE today. The article deal with the very same issue covered by Scott Dunn. I like Adrian's article because it includes a scene by scene slide show that illustrated how he successfully beaten the stealth Update.
EDITED: I hope M$ is not taking cues from this post to further refine the stealth update :-)
i_Xp/VistaUser
0
Let say you rent an apartment.
Owner can go into your apartment anytime & change everything he want without your permission.Verrrrry Nice!!!!
0
As a renter you dont have a choice. Its not your property. And on that premise, you can vacate.
0
Even so, M$ should at least inform the end-user of such updates. Burying the notification in the Event Log is not the proper way to inform.
If a hacker found a way to exploit the AU mechanism, it could prove to be a huge security risk.
"Computer security." — Oxymoron
0
On a side note...
The new LangaList (Windows Secrets) newsletter had an article today worth noting "Stealth Windows update prevents XP repair".Regards,
Bryan
0
"M$ should at least inform the end-user of such updates."
over the years i have experienced a slight discrepancy between what MS should do and what MS does :)
0
Guess what - M$ is now saying we f**ked up sorry and we've got a temp fix for it. IMO M$ fixs doesn't look any better than Adrian Kingsley-Hughes or Scott Dunn's own fix. Anyway...
For the story ... see below
M$ confirms stealth WU update mucks up XP restore
For the fix see below (BTW why can't M$ just call it The Stealth that should never have been..?)
i_Xp/VistaUser
0  |
 |
 |
This post is quite old and has been locked from receiving new replies. Please create a new posting instead.
| Ads by Google |
