Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

[NT Canuck]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

> Kerry;
> I am unaware of any such documentation a least on Microsoft's website.
> In the past trust has been a major issue brought up to Microsoft by
> myself and others, and it will be again.

In most cases it's not so much a distrust of Microsoft
as it is a shift in predictability..and if MS can do
hidden file transfers (especially for such a long while)
then it is most likely a tool with way too much power.

What we have at the moment is a 'blind trust' between
client units and microsoft servers...remote controlled.
Not just a remote control but one with higher privileges
than the client unit, that is the issue...imv
As far as logs are concerned...if files can be transfered
and run/replaced then logs and anything else is a trifle.

Just making notes,
since trust implies both parties have open hands,
anything else could be considered *subservient.

*characterized by extreme compliance or abject obedience

NT Canuck
'Seek and ye shall find'

 

[Adam Albright]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 19:14:11 -0700, Frank <fb@nospan.crm> wrote:

>norm wrote:
>> Frank wrote:
>>
>>> norm wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You have no idea what I am, but you still remain a hypocrite.
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> Well norm, I don't think so.
>>> If you calling me a hypocrite is the best you can come with, and
>>> that's your best shot, sorry, but it is not near good enough.
>>
>> Good enough for what? You?
>
>Not good enough to mean anything to anyone except you. It's only your
>uneducated and unsubstantiated personal opinion. You speak only for
>yourself, right?

The point is I haven't seen Norm or for that matter most posters
attempt to speak for anyone but themselves. You and assorted other nut
cases on the other hand frequently use 'we' as to imply the half-ass
crap that so freely flows from your mouth and elsewhere represents
anything but the wild rantings, endless raving and constant lying of
the lunatic you've proved yourself to be.

The conclusion is you're just a garden variety idiot Frank. Everybody
gets it, but you. Imagine that. LOL!

 

[~greg]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent


" pragmatism, n. 2. a philosophical movement or system having various forms,
but generally stressing practical consequences as constituting
the essential criterion in determining meaning, truth, or value. "



Discussions concerning Microsoft and EULA, etc,
will have a pragmatic value precisely when I get the letter in the mail
telling me that I do not have to do anything,
but that I am part of the class-action suit against Microsoft,
and that I can expect to get my share of the hefty settlement check
in the mail in the very near future.


Short of that, the pragmatic thing to contributed here
is to name exactly what should be turned on, and off,
and how to do it.

And this is how I do it.
If anyone can improve on this,
I'd very much appreciate hearing about it.

To start:
start_ALUS.bat
------------------
cd C:\WINDOWS\system32
sc.exe config "Automatic LiveUpdate Scheduler" start= auto
sc.exe config wuauserv start= auto
sc.exe start "Automatic LiveUpdate Scheduler"
sc.exe start wuauserv

To stop
stop_ALUS.bat
------------------
cd C:\WINDOWS\system32
sc.exe stop "Automatic LiveUpdate Scheduler"
sc.exe stop wuauserv
sc.exe config "Automatic LiveUpdate Scheduler" start= disabled
sc.exe config wuauserv start= disabled


~greg

 

[Kerry Brown]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

If nothing else the issue has created a lot of healthy debate. It has made
me think about updates in general, not just with Microsoft OS', in a whole
new way.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca


"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote in message
news:%23LtdyTN%23HHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Kerry;
> I am unaware of any such documentation a least on Microsoft's website.
> In the past trust has been a major issue brought up to Microsoft by myself
> and others, and it will be again.
>
> --
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
>
>
> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
> news:0F4FCE46-B63C-471B-B474-E701FAD0BE56@microsoft.com...
>> I just spent a few hours searching microsoft.com for some documentation
>> that clearly shows that you need to disable both Windows Updates and BITS
>> to make sure you don't get any unexpected updates. I couldn't find any.
>> If you read between the lines and read several articles spread across
>> technet and msdn and the knowledge base you may come to this conclusion.
>> Can you or anyone point me to a public document that clearly shows how to
>> disable all updates? This is at best incompetence and at worst deliberate
>> misdirection. For me it has broken the trust I had with Microsoft
>> updates. I no longer trust them to do what I tell them to as I now know
>> they will ignore that if they decide it is in my best interest. I want to
>> decide what is best for me. I also want to know that when I check a box
>> that says to turn something off it is off.
>>
>> --
>> Kerry Brown
>> Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
>> http://www.vistahelp.ca
>

 

[Kerry Brown]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

"Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
news:%23xnE8KN%23HHA.3716@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
>
> Oh BTW there is a simple reason it's not MVP in the sig. I am certainly
> NOT an "Expert" with every aspect of computing and did not want to appear
> to be an authority on something I'm not. I did help out with OE and IE but
> have lacked the time to contribute properly for quite a while...
>
> I think it is common to forget that a user who comes here may have just
> clicked a link and never used a newsreader before, or the awful CDO thing,
> and a lot probably feel a bit shy of asking questions. I don't think
> "Didn't you read the manual before you installed it?" is a terribly
> helpful reply
>
> This group and MS Access (Because the group name implies "Public Access to
> Microsoft") seem to be in a league of their own when it comes to talking
> down to folks
>
> If I'm wrong sometimes then I'm wrong, but I treat everyone the same be it
> George W Bush or Bill Gates, nobody I ever met had a halo or IMHO deserved
> one, including me
>

I thought long and hard about including MVP in my sig. There are many
reasons not to but in the end I decided that even though I like to think I'm
not easily swayed it's certainly possible that the MVP award may have
changed the way I think about Microsoft. People need to know that I may be
biased if they take my advice on something.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca

 

[Adam Albright]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 19:33:11 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"
<jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote:

>No confusion.
>The need to attack others instead of dealing with the issue is a
>characteristic of those insecure with a need to prop their views...and it
>fails.

You mean like when you find it necessary to scold posters asking
questions?

Maybe you mean when you play traffic cop and try to chase posters to
another newsgroups.

Telling people they should do research first?

Oh, maybe you mean you getting off being a net cop.

Playing attorney?

No? Well how about your role as Microsoft apologist?

I thought Alan Flavel the jackass that raised being a pompous ass to
an art form in CIWAH was the ultimate blowhard. Then I found you.

 

[Adam Albright]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 19:46:22 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"
<jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote:

>Kerry;
>I am unaware of any such documentation a least on Microsoft's website.
>In the past trust has been a major issue brought up to Microsoft by myself
>and others, and it will be again.

Oh please... you're delusional with your imagined importance. Classic
Walter Mitty complex.

 

[NT Canuck]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

Kerry Brown wrote:

> If nothing else the issue has created a lot of healthy debate. It has
> made me think about updates in general, not just with Microsoft OS', in
> a whole new way.

Sooner or later this will save you some hunting.
Please note that the procedure is from an MS website
so they are making an effort however obscured.

Vista (or the Vista OPK) contains an updated expand.exe command
line utility which can be used to view the newer Vista hotfixes
in (*.msu packed by IPD I think).

If you are extracting a hotfix package, follow these steps:
Double-click the Hotfix.exe file.
In the Microsoft Self-Extractor dialog box, click Continue.
In the Select the folder where you want to unzip the files
to box,
type C:\MSUFolder, and then click OK.
If you are not extracting a hotfix package, create a folder that
is named C:\MSUFolder, and then save the MSU file to this
folder.

At a command prompt, type the following commands.
Press ENTER after each command.
c:cd c:\MSUFolder expand -F:* Saved_MSU_File_Name.msu
c:\MSUFolder
expand -F: Saved_MSU_File_Name.cab c:\MSUFolder

The C:\CABextract folder now contains subfolders.
Examine the files in the subfolders to determine which files
are updated by the MSU.

PS; Typically *.cab are no problem to open.
7zip freeware compression utility will open/extract *.wim files.
LessMSIerables can extract *.msi files (includes source).

NT Canuck
'Seek and ye shall find'

 

[Charlie Tame]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
> Kerry;
> I am unaware of any such documentation a least on Microsoft's website.
> In the past trust has been a major issue brought up to Microsoft by
> myself and others, and it will be again.
>


Ah the great hero Jupiter steps up to defend the users despite
constantly denying there's a problem and telling them to read the EULA
again...

And it obviously doesn't influence Microsoft at all, does it? What an
inflated ego you have.

 

[Charlie Tame]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

Kerry Brown wrote:
> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
> news:%23xnE8KN%23HHA.3716@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>
>>
>> Oh BTW there is a simple reason it's not MVP in the sig. I am
>> certainly NOT an "Expert" with every aspect of computing and did not
>> want to appear to be an authority on something I'm not. I did help out
>> with OE and IE but have lacked the time to contribute properly for
>> quite a while...
>>
>> I think it is common to forget that a user who comes here may have
>> just clicked a link and never used a newsreader before, or the awful
>> CDO thing, and a lot probably feel a bit shy of asking questions. I
>> don't think "Didn't you read the manual before you installed it?" is a
>> terribly helpful reply
>>
>> This group and MS Access (Because the group name implies "Public
>> Access to Microsoft") seem to be in a league of their own when it
>> comes to talking down to folks
>>
>> If I'm wrong sometimes then I'm wrong, but I treat everyone the same
>> be it George W Bush or Bill Gates, nobody I ever met had a halo or
>> IMHO deserved one, including me
>>
>
> I thought long and hard about including MVP in my sig. There are many
> reasons not to but in the end I decided that even though I like to think
> I'm not easily swayed it's certainly possible that the MVP award may
> have changed the way I think about Microsoft. People need to know that I
> may be biased if they take my advice on something.
>


I try very hard to remain unbiased. I have had concerns about other OS
also. For example Open Source is "Supposed" to be good in terms of peer
review etc. But - does anyone except a developer really look at a Linux
Kernel and study the source code in depth except for the part(s) they
are immediately involved with? Or, do they just take the bits that are
not altered this time around and recompile again?

What are the chances of something malicious sneaking in?

I know that's not supposed to happen but could it?

Look at the number of updates to Java recently, true it's not an OS but
it does play a major role in some areas.

So yes, I think the purpose of the MVP award was well intentioned, and
one can declare honestly there's no obligation to MS except of course
the non disclosure agreement. OTOH they don't tell me much they don't
want others to know anyway, but I would honor that agreement as far as
proprietary info goes. As for criticism where we think it is due I think
the MVP award explicitly expects constructive criticism. Otherwise why
include the parts about being independent.

 

[ceed]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

Adam Albright wrote:

|On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 09:59:07 -0700, FIsc <Linda.De.Coster@gmail.com>
|wrote:
|
||On 13 sep, 18:05, Bruce Chambers <bchamb...@cable0ne.n3t> wrote:
||| Silicon neuron wrote:
|||
||| > Microsoft has begun patching files on Windows XP and Vista
|||without users' > knowledge, even when the users have turned off
|||auto-updates.
|||
||| Actually, this is not being done without user consent.
|||Just the opposite. Every user of each operating systems has
|||been given advance notice that such things could happen, and has
|||consented to it.
|||
||| Read the Vista EULA. Section 7 makes it clear that this could
|||happen:
|||
|||
|||==================================================================
|||======
|||
||| You may switch off these features or not use them.
||
||And what about this part? If it was done without user consent even
||when automatic updates were not accepted, isn't this in breach with
||their own rules?
|
|
|Microsoft is infamous for proclaiming "rules" only to break the rules
|themselves. Classic example and what's getting a lot of noise now is
|UAC and standard user. For YEARS Windows and every Microsoft product
|was by DESIGN written to run as administrator. Until Vista, Windows
|installed itself with one user, will full administrative rights unless
|you changed it. Now the boys of Redmond bellow loudly that's not a
|good idea, yet it was Microsoft that not only started the practice but
|encouraged it. The biggest hypocrites of all are found at Microsoft!


You're absolutely right on that one. I couldn't believe my eyes when I
first understood what UAC was all about. But then again, Mr Gates was
the one proclaiming that we would never need more than 640kb memory.
Look at Vista, 640k isn't even enough to issue a BSOD these days..

--
//ceed

 

[NT Canuck]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

Kerry Brown wrote:

> I just spent a few hours searching microsoft.com for some documentation
> that clearly shows that you need to disable both Windows Updates and
> BITS to make sure you don't get any unexpected updates. I couldn't find
> any. If you read between the lines and read several articles spread
> across technet and msdn and the knowledge base you may come to this
> conclusion. Can you or anyone point me to a public document that clearly
> shows how to disable all updates? This is at best incompetence and at
> worst deliberate misdirection. For me it has broken the trust I had with
> Microsoft updates. I no longer trust them to do what I tell them to as I
> now know they will ignore that if they decide it is in my best interest.
> I want to decide what is best for me. I also want to know that when I
> check a box that says to turn something off it is off.

Someone said update control is in here somewhere.
http://technet2.microsoft.com/windo...4eac-4cc3-86fc-a54e67de9c121033.mspx?mfr=true

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...d1-e1cd-4f38-ad1e-d993e05657c9&DisplayLang=en

technet document..
"this is because those files are updated
via a separate channel."

There seems to have been a separate channel (not wsus)
that was used for those stealth updates ...
Just great, stealth updates and now secret channels.

NT Canuck
'Seek and ye shall find'

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

This clearly shows your need to bash while ignoring content that goes
against whatever you want.
Your need to insult while providing absolutely NOTHING of value to the
subject is noted yet again.

"constantly denying there's a problem"
Another statement made by you void of facts since it is simply FALSE.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar


"Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
news:%23X0t47N%23HHA.1900@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Ah the great hero Jupiter steps up to defend the users despite constantly
> denying there's a problem and telling them to read the EULA again...
>
> And it obviously doesn't influence Microsoft at all, does it? What an
> inflated ego you have.

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

"Mr Gates was the one proclaiming that we would never need more than 640kb
memory"
That is a well known myth with no basis in fact.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar


"ceed" <ceed.spameater@dysthe.net> wrote in message
news:xn0fba4o1yovm6001ceedsaid@news.individual.net...
> You're absolutely right on that one. I couldn't believe my eyes when I
> first understood what UAC was all about. But then again, Mr Gates was
> the one proclaiming that we would never need more than 640kb memory.
> Look at Vista, 640k isn't even enough to issue a BSOD these days..
>
> --
> //ceed

 

[ceed]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

Adam Albright wrote:

|On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 12:42:21 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"
|<jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote:
|
||Ford can't.
||There is NOTHING in any agreement that even vaguely gives Ford that
||right assuming I and not Ford own the vehicle.
||If Ford did, I would seek a competent attorney.
|
|Yet your being some unabashed fanboy and Microsoft apologist you
|willing give them rights to your first born or whatever else they
|want. If you only had the intelligence to understand how stupid that
|is, but we both know you don't.

I still don't get this "fanboy" term. It doesn't really tell me
anything other than that you do not trust (and/or like) people who
likes Vista or MS for that matter. It seems very personal for some
reason. Why is it so bad that some people, like me, get Vista to work?
Is it because it's not fair since you don't?

In your world I guess I would be a fanboy, but I think it's a good
thing because it means I get return on my Vista investment. But you use
the term as an insult. I just do not get the logic behind that.

And now you will probably call me all kinds of nasty things again
including fanboy. It is kind of amusing that someone like you who
obviously knows a lot about computers and software wastes so much time
being mad.

--
//ceed

 

[Ezmerelda LaDouche]

Look who is calling the Kettle Black - Just FYI

Look who is calling the Kettle Black - Just FYI

This is so funny. The brain dead right wing wacko who: Posts about his
jobs at the USPS. Just FYI
Who Posts About His right wing wacko political views. Just FYI
Who cries about Republican Senator Fred Thompson. Just FYI
Who tells people to remove Vista on the desktop and install Windows 2008
Server. Just FYI.

This moron Kevin Putzke is telling people they violated some rules? Just
FYI.

Pretty damn funny there Kevin baby. You violate the rules each and every
time you post. Just FYI.

What a moron.

http://priceless420.com/Pr090807hotelmoron.jpg

By the way the link show you where Kevin vacations. Just FYI.

Just FYI

<kevpan815@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:B6735978-616F-4C49-B8D6-E03AF8C190E6@microsoft.com...
> You Just Violated The Microsoft Connect TOS (Terms Of Service), Just FYI.
>
> P.S. You Are Not Supposed To Post Your Beta ID In The Public Newsgroups,
> Just FYI.
>
> "Kevin Brunt (Fat Baztard)" <Kevin.Brunt@MSproducts.com> wrote in message
> news:46E9A183.14926934@NEWSGROUPS.COM...
>>
>> This is just the pratice run. Next time MS will also try disabling any
>> systems it thinks is using pirated software!! Watch the space!!!
>>
>>
>> Silicon neuron wrote:
>>>
>>> http://windowssecrets.com/comp/070913/#story1
>>>
>>> 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 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 stealth updates. Let's say you wished to
>>> voluntarily download and install the new WU executable files when you
>>> were,
>>> for example, reinstalling a system. You'd be hard-pressed to find the
>>> updated files in order to download them. At this writing, you either get
>>> a
>>> stealth install or nothing.
>>>
>>> A few Web forums have already started to discuss the updated files,
>>> which
>>> bear the version number 7.0.6000.381. The only explanation found at
>>> Microsoft's site comes from a user identified as Dean-Dean on a
>>> Microsoft
>>> Communities forum. In reply to a question, he states:
>>>
>>> "Windows Update Software 7.0.6000.381 is an update to Windows Update
>>> itself.
>>> It is an update for both Windows XP and Windows Vista. Unless the update
>>> is
>>> installed, Windows Update won't work, at least in terms of searching for
>>> further updates. Normal use of Windows Update, in other words, is
>>> blocked
>>> until this update is installed."
>>>
>>> Windows Secrets contributing editor Susan Bradley contacted Microsoft
>>> Partner Support about the update and received this short reply:
>>>
>>> "7.0.6000.381 is a consumer only release that addresses some specific
>>> issues
>>> found after .374 was released. It will not be available via WSUS
>>> [Windows
>>> Server Update Services]. A standalone installer and the redist will be
>>> available soon, I will keep an eye on it and notify you when it is
>>> available."
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, this reply does not explain why the stealth patching
>>> began
>>> with so little information provided to customers. Nor does it provide
>>> any
>>> details on the "specific issues" that the update supposedly addresses.
>>>
>>> System logs confirm stealth installs
>>>
>>> In his forum post, Dean-Dean names several files that are changed on XP
>>> and
>>> Vista. The patching process updates several Windows\System32 executables
>>> (with the extensions .exe, .dll, and .cpl) to version 7.0.6000.381,
>>> according to the post.
>>>
>>> In Vista, the following files are updated:
>>>
>>> 1. wuapi.dll
>>> 2. wuapp.exe
>>> 3. wuauclt.exe
>>> 4. wuaueng.dll
>>> 5. wucltux.dll
>>> 6. wudriver.dll
>>> 7. wups.dll
>>> 8. wups2.dll
>>> 9. wuwebv.dll
>>>
>>> In XP, the following files are updated:
>>>
>>> 1. cdm.dll
>>> 2. wuapi.dll
>>> 3. wuauclt.exe
>>> 4. wuaucpl.cpl
>>> 5. wuaueng.dll
>>> 6. wucltui.dll
>>> 7. wups.dll
>>> 8. wups2.dll
>>> 9. wuweb.dll
>>>
>>> These files are by no means viruses, and Microsoft appears to have no
>>> malicious intent in patching them. However, writing files to a user's PC
>>> without notice (when auto-updating has been turned off) is behavior
>>> that's
>>> usually associated with hacker Web sites. The question being raised in
>>> discussion forums is, "Why is Microsoft operating in this way?"
>>>
>>> How to check which version your PC has
>>>
>>> If a system has been patched in the past few months, the nine
>>> executables in
>>> Windows\System32 will either show an earlier version number,
>>> 7.0.6000.374,
>>> or the stealth patch: 7.0.6000.381. (The version numbers can be seen by
>>> right-clicking a file and choosing Properties. In XP, click the Version
>>> tab
>>> and then select File Version. In Vista, click the Details tab.)
>>>
>>> In addition, PCs that received the update will have new executables in
>>> subfolders named 7.0.6000.381 under the following folders:
>>>
>>> c:\Windows\System32\SoftwareDistribution\Setup\ServiceStartup\wups.dll
>>> c:\Windows\System32\SoftwareDistribution\Setup\ServiceStartup\wups2.dll
>>>
>>> Users can also verify whether patching occurred by checking Windows'
>>> Event
>>> Log:
>>>
>>> Step 1. In XP, click Start, Run.
>>>
>>> Step 2. Type eventvwr.msc and press Enter.
>>>
>>> Step 3. In the tree pane on the left, select System.
>>>
>>> Step 4. The right pane displays events and several details about them.
>>> Event
>>> types such as "Installation" are labeled in the Category column.
>>> "Windows
>>> Update Agent" is the event typically listed in the Source column for
>>> system
>>> patches.
>>>
>>> On systems that were checked recently by Windows Secrets readers, the
>>> Event
>>> Log shows two installation events on Aug. 24. The files were
>>> stealth-updated
>>> in the early morning hours. (The time stamp will vary, of course, on
>>> machines that received the patch on other dates.)
>>>
>>> To investigate further, you can open the Event Log's properties for each
>>> event. Normally, when a Windows update event occurs, the properties
>>> dialog
>>> box shows an associated KB number, enabling you to find more information
>>> at
>>> Microsoft's Web site. Mysteriously, no KB number is given for the WU
>>> updates
>>> that began in August. The description merely reads, "Installation
>>> Successful: Windows successfully installed the following update:
>>> Automatic
>>> Updates."
>>>
>>> No need to roll back the updated files
>>>
>>> Again, it's important to note that there's nothing harmful about the
>>> updated
>>> files themselves. There are no reports of software conflicts and no
>>> reason
>>> to remove the files (which WU apparently needs in order to access the
>>> latest
>>> patches). The only concern is the mechanism Microsoft is using to
>>> perform
>>> its patching, and how this mechanism might be used by the software giant
>>> in
>>> the future.
>>>
>>> I'd like to thank reader Angus Scott-Fleming for his help in researching
>>> this topic. He recommends that advanced Windows users monitor changes to
>>> their systems' Registry settings via a free program by Olivier Lombart
>>> called Tiny Watcher. Scott-Fleming will receive a gift certificate for a
>>> book, CD, or DVD of his choice for sending in a comment we printed.
>>>
>>> I'll report further on this story when I'm able to find more information
>>> on
>>> the policies and techniques behind Windows Update's silent patches. Send
>>> me
>>> your tips on this subject via the Windows Secrets contact page.
>>>
>>> Scott Dunn is associate editor of the Windows Secrets Newsletter. He is
>>> also
>>> a contributing editor of PC World Magazine, where he has written a
>>> monthly
>>> column since 1992, and co-author of 101 Windows Tips & Tricks (Peachpit)
>>> with Jesse Berst and Charles Bermant.
>>

 

[ceed]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

|"Mr Gates was the one proclaiming that we would never need more than
|640kb memory" That is a well known myth with no basis in fact.

It may be myth or it may not. The jury is still out on that one.
There's no written proof that he said it, you are right there. But it
doesn't turn into a myth because he denies having said it. I would have
wanted to deny that also..

Take a look here:

http://tickletux.wordpress.com/2007/02/20/did-bill-gates-say-the-640k-line/

--
//ceed

 

[WaIIy]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 21:56:50 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"
<jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote:

>"Mr Gates was the one proclaiming that we would never need more than 640kb
>memory"
>That is a well known myth with no basis in fact.

Right, he didn't say it. Some quotes for your amusement.....

There never was a chip, it is said, that Bill Gates couldn't slow down
with a new batch of features.

* James Coates, The Chicago Tribune

 

[Kerry Brown]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

"NT Canuck" <optional_ntcanuck@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u0aXLaO%23HHA.1416@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Kerry Brown wrote:
>
>> I just spent a few hours searching microsoft.com for some documentation
>> that clearly shows that you need to disable both Windows Updates and BITS
>> to make sure you don't get any unexpected updates. I couldn't find any.
>> If you read between the lines and read several articles spread across
>> technet and msdn and the knowledge base you may come to this conclusion.
>> Can you or anyone point me to a public document that clearly shows how to
>> disable all updates? This is at best incompetence and at worst deliberate
>> misdirection. For me it has broken the trust I had with Microsoft
>> updates. I no longer trust them to do what I tell them to as I now know
>> they will ignore that if they decide it is in my best interest. I want to
>> decide what is best for me. I also want to know that when I check a box
>> that says to turn something off it is off.
>
> Someone said update control is in here somewhere.
> http://technet2.microsoft.com/windo...4eac-4cc3-86fc-a54e67de9c121033.mspx?mfr=true
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...d1-e1cd-4f38-ad1e-d993e05657c9&DisplayLang=en
>
> technet document..
> "this is because those files are updated
> via a separate channel."
>
> There seems to have been a separate channel (not wsus)
> that was used for those stealth updates ...
> Just great, stealth updates and now secret channels.
>


Windows Server Update Services is a service to run on a server to replace
using the Microsoft servers for client updates on a network. The server is
configured to download the updates from the Microsoft servers then deploy
them to the clients as approved by the network administrator. I have
customers who use WSUS. I use it on my test network to test updates for
customers before they approve them for their networks. I haven't had time to
see yet if the update in question was deployed by WSUS. I imagine it was but
the WSUS process is very open to the network administrator. As far as I know
they have complete control over what gets deployed to the clients but I also
thought this about the normal update channel so who knows.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
http://www.vistahelp.ca

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Re: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

Without any evidence, it is a myth at best.

"But it doesn't turn into a myth because he denies..."
But it can when there is no evidence of it having been said other than
commonly misquoted.
Find something that gives a specific time place, verifiable source such as a
transcript etc.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar


"ceed" <ceed.spameater@dysthe.net> wrote in message
news:xn0fbaia4zyd30004ceedsaid@news.individual.net...
> It may be myth or it may not. The jury is still out on that one.
> There's no written proof that he said it, you are right there. But it
> doesn't turn into a myth because he denies having said it. I would have
> wanted to deny that also..
>
> Take a look here:
>
> http://tickletux.wordpress.com/2007/02/20/did-bill-gates-say-the-640k-line/
>
> --
> //ceed