1st they kill autopatcher... now they force you to upgrade...

whats next .... your soul

Quote: Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent Printable version 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\Ser viceStartup\wups.dll c:\Windows\System32\SoftwareDistribution\Setup\Ser viceStartup\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.

Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent - WindowsSecrets.com

Time to pull your perfect machine off the net. Now to figure out how to use a network with multiple machines but only have one on the net without interfearing with their communcation.
Fricken M$ I cant wait to get to hell so I can watch you burn.

I never received any of this stuff. Guess if you have the automatic updates service turned off in services.msc and not just in the control panel it does really prevent M$ from hassling you.

Its probably slightly daft to accept no updates from Microsoft, im sure some of them do good

Well it smells fishy. I would of installed them anyways but it's
always nice to know what's going on.

I keep my machine up to date. I just don't like extra services and unnecessary stuff running in the background hogging resources and doing stuff I don't know about. I let it update itself usually once a month. That might end though if M$ keeps up with the shady stuff.

Quote: Originally Posted by Spatha Time to pull your perfect machine off the net. Now to figure out how to use a network with multiple machines but only have one on the net without interfearing with their communcation. Fricken M$ I cant wait to get to hell so I can watch you burn.

You can. Set the ones you want to have strictly network capability (no internet) to have static IPs, and don't give them any gateway or DNS info... so they just request an IP and subnet.


I had to do this when I had my computer running two NICs. One connection was the internet, one was my file server with no net. Windows would get confused at which connection to look through for internet. Assigning one NIC for static IP with no gateway info solved this.

This whole article is bullsh1t, and so are all the bloody conspiracy theories about Microsoft. Has anyone other than me even bothered to read the EULA for Windows XP and Vista? Beginning with XP, the EULA expressly states that if you agree to the EULA (which you have to in order to install Windows) Microsoft has the right to without your knowledge update code on your computer.

It's not just a tick-box after all, now, huh? If you want to use their stuff, you gotta play by their rules. Otherwise, there's always Ubuntu.

[EDIT] I sent this exact post to editor@windowssecrets.com. M$ is well within their legal right to do just as they have done. They're just exercising that right now.

Just because they CAN does not mean they SHOULD or that it's POLITE.

Quote: Originally Posted by Joose This whole article is bullsh1t, and so are all the bloody conspiracy theories about Microsoft. Has anyone other than me even bothered to read the EULA for Windows XP and Vista? Beginning with XP, the EULA expressly states that if you agree to the EULA (which you have to in order to install Windows) Microsoft has the right to without your knowledge update code on your computer. It's not just a tick-box after all, now, huh? If you want to use their stuff, you gotta play by their rules. Otherwise, there's always Ubuntu. [EDIT] I sent this exact post to editor@windowssecrets.com. M$ is well within their legal right to do just as they have done. They're just exercising that right now.

Does it mean it right?

I've read the EULA, its 21 pages too.

I mean lets say they threw in "microsoft as a whole, has the right to remove you hard drive drivers without your consent, if they are unapproved by microsoft."

What happened if they just happen to be a huge collection of sony SSD drive, and M$ doesn't support them (hypothetically) Would you like it to have a hard drive crash, and not be able to even open windows because of it.

The deal here is, patches are tested for reasons. They need to be checked for all types of systems, within M$'s component requirements. So if they aren't tested, would you want M$ to update your system, and have it crash your PC cause they werent tested. Maybe you loose some three hour paper you're writing and haven't saved, but have no logically valid reason to, do to the fact that you PC doesn't download updates from M$ due to the problems that arise from them in the past.

Just because they have the power to, due to an agreement you "agreed" to, doesn't mean they should skip the testing phase.

Since my only online gaming consists of Diablo II with a friend in S.C. and I run that in a WINE session my Windows box has no WAN access. Pity that's simply NOT an option for most people. Privacy seems to be trickling away these days. Legal or not it's still a fairly ****ty thing to do.

It is becoming ridiculous what you have to agree to these days in order to use software. Why do they even call it "purchasing" software? You are only buying the right to just use it.

No one is really forced to use Microsatan at home. I for one love that company, wtf would we be today without them ??
We would of lost the Cold War and we'd all be wearing RED !!!!!!!!!!!

Quote: Originally Posted by BuffaloChips It is becoming ridiculous what you have to agree to these days in order to use software. Why do they even call it "purchasing" software? You are only buying the right to just use it.

hehe... you are right... at one time microsoft was going to change the licensing for its office series to be "online only" and you had to pay a yearly fee to use it.

as for the auto update m$ might have somthing written into its eula, but these days some eula's are asking for your first born, and more then likely would not hold up in court.

as for thoes of you wondering why having auto updates off would be a bad thing here are a couple of reasons:

1. go back in time to around the year 2000ish there was a ms update that had a virus attached to it by ms. It wasnt on purpose, but it did wreck havoc on a lot of systems.

2. service packs break ****. i work for a backup software company. i have restored many systems where a service pack has killed a server, or made it so custom software no longer works.

3. if ms can use an automatic update that doesnt require you to approve it, then that means so can anyone else. give it time, some hacker will learn how to exploit this, and there will be nothing you can do about it.

Quote: Originally Posted by BuffaloChips It is becoming ridiculous what you have to agree to these days in order to use software. Why do they even call it "purchasing" software? You are only buying the right to just use it.

You're NOT purchasing software. You ARE purchasing a LICENSE to USE the software. You don't own it, Microsoft does. They always have, and they always will. It's the same with CD's, games, DVD's etc. You don't OWN the material on the media you buy, you own the RIGHT to USE that material for your own personal use. That's why there's disclaimers on CD's and DVD's saying 'blahblah don't show this movie publicly blahblah'.

I never said it was cool or that Microsoft wasn't being a complete asshat (which they are) I'm just pointing out the fact that by virtue of the fact that you installed their software, you give them the right to do that. If you don't want to give them that right, then uninstall Windows, install an alternative and quit yer bitching. Or sue them. Your choice.

Quote: Originally Posted by Joose You're NOT purchasing software. You ARE purchasing a LICENSE to USE the software. You don't own it, Microsoft does. They always have, and they always will. It's the same with CD's, games, DVD's etc. You don't OWN thematerial on the media you buy, you own the RIGHT to USE that material for your own personal use. That's why there's disclaimers on CD's and DVD's saying 'blahblah don't show this movie publicly blahblah'. I never said it was cool or that Microsoft wasn't being a complete asshat (which they are) I'm just pointing out the fact that by virtue of the fact that you installed their software, you give them the right to do that. If you don't want to give them that right, then uninstall Windows, install an alternative and quit yer bitching. Or sue them. Your choice.

Windows didn't come with an uninstaller......I wonder why.

Quote: Originally Posted by s1ugh34d Windows didn't come with an uninstaller......I wonder why.

sure it did! It's called format.com

Haha, maybe you guys should read licence argrements once in a while

Joose is right, you wanna own something, go write your own OS

Quote: Originally Posted by Joose You're NOT purchasing software. You ARE purchasing a LICENSE to USE the software. You don't own it, Microsoft does. They always have, and they always will. It's the same with CD's, games, DVD's etc. You don't OWN the material on the media you buy, you own the RIGHT to USE that material for your own personal use. That's why there's disclaimers on CD's and DVD's saying 'blahblah don't show this movie publicly blahblah'.

That's true with a lot of things in life. Everyone that buys a house plan from me is doing the
same. For the average homeowner it really doesn't matter. They build a house and if they
sell it they usually build a bigger house. But a lot of Builders will build the same house
over and over again. And I charge them for every one of them. And if they try to build it
without paying I just put a lien on the home. Then they can't sell it without paying me.
Ownership has it's privileges :-)

Quote: Originally Posted by Joose sure it did! It's called format.com

Ahem,

sudo qtparted > format>ext3 then,

>Install Better OS.



The only way to avoid this unfairness (and still use windows) Is to never connect that computer to the net. Set up 2 boxes. One Power Hungry Mofo That runs windows for gaming, and a older (Athlon XP or P4) with Linux for the net. Simple As That. Newer linux distro's are so easy to use, they are almost windows like.