There isn't anything in that article that suggests that updates are being secretly pushed to users' machines. It sounds more like MS simply doesn't disclose every patch that is contained within their regular, visible security updates.
I have a hard time agreeing that MS would completely fall in line with supporting complaints after a secret update considering it could be exceptionally time consuming and costly to support such claims if people were under the impression it had contributed to system failure or found a way to exploit it.
For example - if this update just happened (which I did find 2 critical windows updates but have coincidentally also run into a NEW S.M.A.R.T HD failure- how can I prove or disprove complicity with the update? I could very well be under the impression that this error (critical and a massive headache nonetheless) quite possibly correlates to their secret update.
For example - if this update just happened (which I did find 2 critical windows updates but have coincidentally also run into a NEW S.M.A.R.T HD failure- how can I prove or disprove complicity with the update? I could very well be under the impression that this error (critical and a massive headache nonetheless) quite possibly correlates to their secret update.
So how would I or anyone else go about that?
Microsoft would probably argue it's nothing more than coincidence. It would fall on you to find enough circumstantial evidence and/or corroborating data from other Microsoft users that would allow a reasonable and prudent person to reach a conclusion of fact that Microsoft's update(s) were responsible.
Not to mention that everytime an update is released, someone somewhere has an issue with installing it. Very hard to prove at the end of the day, as no two machine's are the same
For example - if this update just happened (which I did find 2 critical windows updates but have coincidentally also run into a NEW S.M.A.R.T HD failure- how can I prove or disprove complicity with the update? I could very well be under the impression that this error (critical and a massive headache nonetheless) quite possibly correlates to their secret update.
So how would I or anyone else go about that?
Microsoft would probably argue it's nothing more than coincidence. It would fall on you to find enough circumstantial evidence and/or corroborating data from other Microsoft users that would allow a reasonable and prudent person to reach a conclusion of fact that Microsoft's update(s) were responsible.
And that is where the end user is SOL if there is a connection regardless of their knowledge or capability to prove so - MS can arbitrarily and blindly send out a hidden update with little to no regard for the system it is being delivered to. That is Dangerous and proves without a doubt that they can be held complicit for the shear fact that they are doing it with little to no knowledge of the kind of system they are attempting to alter.
Just because it has 4 wheels doesn't mean it takes unleaded gas - ya know what I mean?
And that is where the end user is SOL if there is a connection regardless of their knowledge or capability to prove so - MS can arbitrarily and blindly send out a hidden update with little to no regard for the system it is being delivered to. That is Dangerous and proves without a doubt that they can be held complicit for the shear fact that they are doing it with little to no knowledge of the kind of system they are attempting to alter.
Just because it has 4 wheels doesn't mean it takes unleaded gas - ya know what I mean?
I completely agree with what you're saying. Unfortunately, Microsoft is altering an operating system and it can't be responsible about how the consumers (you and me) are using that operating system or on what machine. Anymore than an automotive manufacturer can control what the consumer does to the vehicle once it leaves the dealer's showroom floor.
And speaking of dealers (just to continue the automotive analogy) many times a manufacturer releases service bulletins telling dealers that the next time a particular vehicle comes in for service, go ahead and change out part abc with newer part xyz. It's not something that requires a full-blown recall or even a letter to the buyer. It's simply the manufacturer "doing the right thing" to patch his product at no cost to the consumer. If I find out that my dealer replaced abc with xyz without my knowledge or consent, and I'm leasing my vehicle from the dealer, then I think it could be successfully argued that the dealer had the absolute right to keep his vehicle patched. If you bought your vehicle and the dealer patches it without your knowledge or consent, and something subsequently breaks, you'd still have to be able to show a cause and effect relationship.
Difference between a mechanic and MS sending blind updates/changes to an OS
The mechanic CAN see what he is working on
And Once again if MS is not required to prove that their actions did not cause the problem when they are the ones who did something unknowing to the end user then that is reason why end users should be concerned, they have NO defense and could very well lose a great portion of their lives (many adults nowadays have massive amounts of their lives invested in their computers) because of it.
It is bullshit that favors the ones who have the power period.
I have this error after running the IE9 update - coincidence? Why should I think that?
I know that the IE9 wasn't a secret patch - but it was labeled as important so I thought initially it would benefit the security of IE
I am now wasting a TON of my time backing up my system and contemplating what to do next.
You know I would rather Microsoft do what they do than face the possibility that my PC is laid bare for all to come along and hack it.
There is no such thing as a perfect OS and if people find exploits I for one am glad that MS are working on them and closing them as and when discovered, Paranoia about MS is abundant the world over, maybe we should all go back to using an Abacus can't get hacked on that.
I for one always make a weekly Image of my system if things do go pear shaped after a secret push I always have that to go back to.
As consumers do we have the right to inquire as to what these fixes are? And if so - how does that protect against hacking - for a hacker could ask the same.
If they can do this without warning/liability who knows what they can put on personal, public, and corporate machines/servers without permission.
And what happens if they damage the OS/machine(s)?
Is the enduser SOL?
Dear MR PC,
You said it! A REP. point is humming your way! We know that google collects info' of different varieties via all the three types of cookies. Three weeks back, i bought "CleanGoogle" for 5$( sort of a garage sale) and it is a program which alerts us via sounds, pop-ups, etc whenever Google ad-cookies are on the PC! Now it costs you 14$!
Whenever i used Google chrome browser, the number of cookies went up and up into the stratosphere, with beeps, sounds, alert messages and such! We value our God,Privacy and car,roughly in that order, don't we?
So,you can imagine what a database MS has on each and everyone of us! THANX for patiently reading my rants
Regards,
Sreedhav
PS: I can't locate any scales on the right upper end of the post ,not only yours, but everybody else!
Last edited by sreedhav; 20 Feb 2011 at 22:54.
Reason: COULD NOT LOCATE THE SCALES!
System Manufacturer/Model Number: Sony Vaio C series VPCCB35FN laptop OS: MS Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit SP1 CPU: IntelCore i5@2.40GHz; Sandy Bridge 32nm Tech. Motherboard: Sony Vaio Version:C609NJYJ Memory: 4096Mb RAM; Single ChannelDDR3@665MHz; DRAM Freq:662MHz Graphics Card: AMD Radeon HD 6630M; GPU:Whistler;BIOS Core&mem Clock:123.36 Sound Card: REALTEK High Definition Audio Device; INTEL Display Card Monitor(s) Displays: Generic PnP Intel HD;Resolution:1920*1040 Pixels; BPP:32bits Screen Resolution: Current Resolution:1920*1080 Pixels; Monitor Frequency:60Hz Keyboard: Logitech Bluetooth+ Generic Integrated K-B Mouse: Logitech Bluetooth Cooling: Lateral Exhaust with a Cooling Pad Placed Beneath. Hard Drives: Internal HD:TOSHIBA MK5061GSY; Real Size:488 GB;NTFS; 3 Partitions; SATA; HEADS:16
External HDD: WD Elements 1023 PORTABLE; Estimated Size: 1TB; NTFS; 3 Partitions Internet Speed: 2MBPS Other Info: 1)Trend Micro Titanium Maximum Security Suite Version:3
2)SAS-PRO
3)MBAM--PRO
4)WATERFOX+IE9 +WOT+LINKEXTEND+ DRWEBCUREIT LINK CHECKER
5)SPYWAREBLASTER
6) WINPATROL PLUS
7) SANDBOXIE and
8) A BIT OF COMMON SENSE.
Microsoft has this week issued a patch for a bug in the system used to develop active web pages. In a change from the company's normal procedures, the update had already been made available for manual downloading before testing was complete.
The bug affected ASP.NET (Active Server Pages), a...
Security Firm: Microsoft Issued 'Silent' Patches
Source: Security Firm: Microsoft Issued 'Silent' Patches - PCWorld
I saw that a similar article had been posted by JMH, but I felt that this one was a little more in-depth and was worth a new thread. If not, feel free to combine them.