Windows Update pushes out "stealth" updates, Microsoft explains
By Donald Melanson 
posted September 13th 2007 4:12PM
posted September 13th 2007 4:12PM
Microsoft kicked up a bit of a stir recently, when it began what appeared to be a practice of updating files on individuals' computers even when they had turned off the automatic update feature in Windows XP and Vista. That first came to light courtesy of the folks at the "Windows Secrets" newsletter, which found that nine files in XP and Vista were changed on or after August 24th, with no notification of the changes in Windows whatsoever. That was later confirmed by ZDNET's Hardware 2.0 blog, which tracked down the affected files and also pinpointed the update date as August 24th. Now, Microsoft has come out and explained itself, saying that the updates weren't really updates for Windows, but rather updates for Windows Update itself, which apparently didn't merit a notification. The company does admit that it could have been more "transparent" about the matter, however, and says it's now "looking at the best way to clarify" the behavior of Windows Update.[Thanks, Robert J]
Read - Computerworld, "Microsoft changes Windows files on user PCs without permission"
Read - ZDNet Hardware 2.0, "Confirmation of stealth Windows Update"
Read - ITWorld, "Microsoft: 'Secret' updates were for Windows Update itself"
Can you say class action lawsuit. I am normally a pretty big fan of MS however this crosses the line, the updates themselves are not a big deal but the fact that microsoft can install files on a PC without the user knowing it is bullshit as a network administrator this is very VERY troubling. There is no way the MS can test this with every peice of software, for all they know these update could crash certain systems with certain software installed on them. I have a feeling the MS will be in big trouble over this espesially if they did it to government or buisness systems.
I wonder if this has anything to do with the WGA service meltdown last month.
Who owns your computer? You? Apparently not.
exactly. I'm getting tired of these friggin Mac fanboys on this website. Was fun for a while but now its getting real lame.
i read the first sentence and what do u no, my computer is updating itself without notifying me.. whats the odds?
this is kinda bad, especially for people with download limits and the like
No $hit
I'm currently dealing /w a winblow$ update that causes IE to throw a memory error. And I work for I.S. for over 15 years. Isn't it nice that winblow$ breaks their own $hit? Now that's a feature I pay
over $100 buck for! (NOT)
>The company does admit that it could have been more "transparent" about the matter, however, and says it's now "looking at the best way to clarify" the behavior of Windows Update.
...Isn't that the exact opposite of what we want them to do?
I dont know if it was just me...but this 'stealth' patch seemed to restart my computer. I woke up to find my computer restarted in the middle of the night...so if they are goin push out more stealth patches...they better not reboot my computer.
Everyone is forgetting the Microsoft EULA they "agreed" to when they installed/upgraded windows. YOU DO NOT OWN WINDOWS OS. You own your hardware and personal files. YOUR OS ARE BELONG TO MICROSOFT. Not a joke, read the EULA. You rent your os. Shady? Absolutely, but you agreed to it.
I think you're misunderstanding the EULA. The part you are quoting basically says I have no right to the source code and no right to repackage and resell copies of it. It's the same in every software package you have ever bought.
What it does NOT say is that I contractually agreed to allow them to make any changes to my installed copy whenever they want to. That's what checking the "automatically install all updates for me" box does.
It must have been a gi-huge-ic vulnerability they found. Of course this would assume MS found a bug before anyone else. Hmm, on second thought, it probably does have something to do with WGA.
Only ONE solution is acceptable. An update that makes updating without Explicit permission physically impossible and that this update does NOT include ANY other updates is not DEPENDANT on any other updates and is an open unrestricted solitary download.
Look, the key issue is who has control of the computer (server / workstation) and its data. If you CHOOSE to do something, great, you have done so freely with software or operating systems you have licensed.
If it is done to you without your choice, particularly if you have tried to disable the Windows Update features or get notified when the updates are going to be installed, then you are basically being owned. You are no longer free. You have not made a free choice.
Now, my company owns my laptop and they have every right to do silent installs on my laptop. They licensed the OS and theoretically have the rights to all data on my laptop.
Here's the interesting part. Does Microsoft have more rights than my company?? Now Microsoft is owning them through this undocumented back door.
Let's say my company is a government agency or law enforcement agency. See the problem now folks?
Time to get off Microsoft.