[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Clare Shepherd wrote: > I thought you may be interested in the following article which > appeared on windowsxpcentral. > > > By Scott Dunn > > *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. > > > *Files changed with no notice to users * > > In recent days, Windows Update (WU) started altering files on users' > systems without displaying any dialog box to request permission. The > only files that have been reportedly altered to date are nine small > executables on XP and nine on Vista that are used by WU itself. > Microsoft is patching these files silently, even if auto-updates have > been disabled on a particular PC. > > It's surprising that these files can be changed without the user's > knowledge. The Automatic Updates dialog box in the Control Panel can > be set to prevent updates from being installed automatically. However, > with Microsoft's latest stealth move, updates to the WU executables > seem to be installed regardless of the settings — without notifying users. > > When users launch Windows Update, Microsoft's online service can check > the version of its executables on the PC and update them if necessary. > What's unusual is that people are reporting changes in these files > although WU wasn't authorized to install anything. > > This isn't the first time Microsoft has pushed updates out to users > who prefer to test and install their updates manually. Not long ago, > another Windows component, *svchost.exe,* was causing problems with > Windows Update, as last reported on June 21 > <http://windowssecrets.com/links/bkbc92smz8z8d/0b929ch/?url=WindowsSecrets.com%2F2007%2F06%2F21%2F01-Svchost.exe-gets-worse-before-its-fixed> > > in the Windows Secrets Newsletter. In that case, however, the Windows > Update site notified users that updated software had to be installed > before the patching process could proceed. This time, such a notice > never appears. > > For users who elect not to have updates installed automatically, the > issue of consent is crucial. Microsoft has apparently decided, > however, that it doesn't need permission to patch Windows Updates > files, even if you've set your preferences to require it. > > *Microsoft provides no tech information — yet * > > To make matters even stranger, a search on Microsoft's Web site > reveals no information at all on the stea > > > What gob-smacking arrogance. > > > > > > Clare > > http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9033701&intsrc=news_ts_head on a related note, after this do you honestly believe them. nope not a chance Paul -- Support open file formats use ISO 26300 Open Document format as used by openoffice.org, http:///www.openoffice.org Events 15th September 2007 - Software Freedom Day 20th September (thurs) 2007 - Lug meet, Half Moon Pub, torquay road, Paignton, @ 7:30 20th October 2007 - Lug clustering meeting. 18th October 2007 - Ubuntu 7.10 release date 28th October - Penzance Computers meet 11th November. Penzance Computers meet details on lug site, www.dcglug.org.uk under meetings. visit us on IRC - irc.phractured.net / 6667 #dclug -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version 3.1 GIT d S: a C+++ UL++++ P+ L++ W++ N+ W--- O! V! PS+ Y! t+++ 5 X+++ R tv- b- DI! D++ G e H! r! z? -----END GEEK CODE BLOCK---- -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html