Windows update

[Headbanger's Ball]

Topics like this get side-tracked easily so if I am saying something that's been said already, sorry.

If you turn on Automatic Updates, you'll get the critical ones and nothing more.

WGA doesn't need to be installed. You can uncheck it before it installs and click "Dont ask again" (or something like that.) If you already have, there are fixes out on the net.

[ROF]

Topics like this get side-tracked easily so if I am saying something that's been said already, sorry.

If you turn on Automatic Updates, you'll get the critical ones and nothing more.

WGA doesn't need to be installed. You can uncheck it before it installs and click "Dont ask again" (or something like that.) If you already have, there are fixes out on the net.

or . .

If your OS, is legit, there is nothing to be afraid of. Install away...

[ron spencer]

why is this even an issue?

you can get the updates anywhere....autopatcher, etc.

who cares if they shut off updates? Blah

[ROF]

why is this even an issue?

Because the original poster had a question about it and most of what followed is answers and general opinions.

[Nitemare]

ron spencer wrote:
why is this even an issue?

Because the original poster had a question about it and most of what followed is answers and general opinions

Yes, Ron. many opinions. Many of them by ROF. He's big on opinions. He doesn't care much about the facts but his opinions are huge.

FWIW... most of my machine are still WIN98 (can't WAIT to hear ROFs opinion on THAT) and I've never had a single virus, I never get a single spam e-mail, and, while I do get the occasional piece of spyware/malware, it never stays on my system long. Security is better handled by people with the knowlege to make their systems secure.

Microsoft's DOCUMENTED opinion on secure software (an old article in a Newsweek magazine contained a quote by a microsoft "security professional"...I wish to GOD I had still had that mag... but I'll paraphrase) ...essentially Microsoft feels that, if the software is used for its intended purpose then it's security is fine... security only becomes a problem when people try to abuse the software (or aspects of the software) by looking for holes and exploits whithin the software.

So, to rephrase yet again... Microsoft believes that leaving your front door unlocked is perfectly okay ... burglars shouldn't be trying to enter your house anyway.

Now do you really want to rely on these clowns for your security? ANYONE who has bothered to do ANY research on this subject knows that Microsoft's security is a joke. That some people claim otherwise means nothing. Do the research yourself, the web is loaded with information about this. The research proves ... (a FACT, mind you)... that Microsoft's security, even after their patches, fixes, and updates is still a joke.

Lord Smurf and the others have it right. I haven't updated my win98 machines in eons and I don't even get SPAM! I've never had single virus...EVER.

ROF. It's obvious that you BELIEVE strongly in what you say, but your arguments are just your opinions repeated louder and louder. Try using some factual data in your answers. Even some anecdotal data would be fine ... something other than your opinion. Opinons are fine but you don't even debate yours... you just repeat... if we didn't buy it the first time then repeating the same weak argument is pointless. I'm not saying this to be mean. I can see that you take a beating on this board. Being willing to substantiate or debate would take you long way here. Stating an opinion is fine, but you know what people say opinions are like...

[ROF]

ROF. It's obvious that you BELIEVE strongly in what you say, but your arguments are just your opinions repeated louder and louder. Try using some factual data in your answers.

http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/update/bulletins/default.mspx

[Nitemare]

from the link you posted

On August 24, Microsoft re-released security bulletin MS06-042, for Internet Explorer. This re-release addresses a vulnerability in Internet Explorer 6 SP1.

On August 8, Microsoft released 12 security updates. These updates address vulnerabilities in Microsoft Windows, Internet Explorer, PowerPoint and Microsoft Office.

So this proves your point how? It proves MY point! Check it out

This re-release addresses a vulnerability in Internet Explorer 6 SP1.

SP1? Service Pack 1? Wasn't that a bunch of security fixes? Oh! Look! They're fixing it AGAIN. Thank you. You proved my point better than I ever could. Microsoft SUCKS at security.

...not just in their OS either.

[ROF]

from the link you posted

On August 24, Microsoft re-released security bulletin MS06-042, for Internet Explorer. This re-release addresses a vulnerability in Internet Explorer 6 SP1.

On August 8, Microsoft released 12 security updates. These updates address vulnerabilities in Microsoft Windows, Internet Explorer, PowerPoint and Microsoft Office.

So this proves your point how? It proves MY point! Check it out

This re-release addresses a vulnerability in Internet Explorer 6 SP1.

SP1? Service Pack 1? Wasn't that a bunch of security fixes? Oh! Look! They're fixing it AGAIN. Thank you. You proved my point better than I ever could. Microsoft SUCKS at security.

...not just in their OS either.

No, actually what you have proven is that Microsoft is dedicated to security and not going to let vulnerabilities go unpatch simply because they released a service pack.

[CrayonEater]

Are you freaking'kidding me? That has to be the most laughable statement I've ever heard on VH. "Dedicated to security"? How does a company that's "dedicated to security" allow websites to run executable code without a sandbox? And call it a "feature" no less! Why does a company "dedicated to security" do so little testing on their own product they have only a relative handful of self-identified security flaws, as opposed to Mozilla or Ethereal/Wireshark, who constantly test their own products? And how does the "dedicated to security" Microsoft allow typically 10-20% of serious security flaws to go unpatched?(1)

Microsoft is about as dedicated to security as spyware makers are dedicated to protecting people's privacy.

(1) quick estimation based on the Secunia advisories for Windows XP, Win2k, MS Office 2000, Office XP, and IE 6.

[DJTekno]

ROF, I've said it before and i'll say it again......You are Bill Gates and i claim my reward

Seriously though, what right have you to specify what other people do/say/think? Is there any chance you could get down off your moral high-horse for just one second? Actually READ what people like Lord Smurf have written. At least then try to expain yourself logically, without resorting to your participating in something illegal, blah blah blah....

Ah well, that's my 2c. Flame away ROF, i'm expecting nothing less

/wishes for an ignore feature on the forum.

[ROF]

ROF, I've said it before and i'll say it again......You are Bill Gates and i claim my reward

Seriously though, what right have you to specify what other people do/say/think? Is there any chance you could get down off your moral high-horse for just one second? Actually READ what people like Lord Smurf have written. At least then try to expain yourself logically, without resorting to your participating in something illegal, blah blah blah...

Hold up there. I did not say anything illegal about choosing to update or not to update. All I have said is that it is reckless not to update your Core Operating System with the latest security patches provided by the maker of your Core Operating System. Failure to do so is what is called unsafe computing and in the globally connected environment a Core Operating System unpatched is a danger waiting to spread. How you ask? Look it up, this is common knowledge. Read the security bulletins for your Operating System for more information.

[Supreme2k]

At least then try to expain yourself logically, without resorting to "you're participating in something illegal, blah blah blah...."

There. Fixed it for you.

Agreed.

I've been on Ubuntu (linux) for about a week. So far, I don't really notice a significant difference from Windows. Plus, I've got Wine for the rare instances of needing a Win app (haven't needed it yet, though.)

[Nitemare]

ROF. I can see that we're never going to convince each other so I think that we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree.

For the record, staying current with updates is not neccesarily a BAD thing. I'm not against it in theory. But the facts are that Microsoft has long history of rushing products to market and then letting their customers test their products for them. Yes, Microsoft usually patches and fixes problems once they're found, but their track record for security is extremely weak.

I disagree that MS is dedicated to security. Their customers make it a necessary inconvenience to MS that we insist on secure software. This is why their workarounds and half-assed fixes are so common. They have no interest in actually fixing it so they throw some spackle over the hole and move on. This has been done over and over by MS.

Does anyone else think these hassles are intentional? A few years back, Bill Gates was certain that people would rather "subscribe" to software over the internet than buy it. (someone else brought this up before... too lazy to look it up though ... but props for whoever mentioned this first) Mr. Gates' new business model was based on this theory.

I'm not one of the people who hates Bill Gates but when he announced that I laughed myself sore. I thought to myself, "Man! Old Bill just made his first really HUGE mistake!"... that thought was immediately followed another... "Unless they find a way to give us no other choice...hmmm..." (I downloaded linux a week later, BTW)

Now, suddenly, keeping your OS and other software updated has become problematic. (blamed on pirates...again! ... no surprise there...) The alternative sites for updates will be the next to go... intellectual property and all that. (which is true, BTW... I can't believe they've existed this long) I can't help but feel like this is just the beginning of that "forcing-people-into-renting-software-as-a-service-over-the-internet" thing.

I'm not a whacky conspiracy theorist or anything (well... maybe a little...) but stranger things have happened and still been true. I really believe it's the start of the subscribing nonsense. They have to make the idea more appealing to consumers. What better way than to make buying, installing, maintaining, and updating your software a huge pain in the @$$?

Am I the only one who thinks this?