How do I protect myself...

[Guest]

....from Microsoft? If someone can submit to me a practical solution besides
turning off Auto-updates, I will do it. I never want to have my pc break
from Microsoft pushing untested mal-ware.....err...security patches ever
again. Is there an alternative to turning off updates, and waiting to see if
anyone gets screwed? Is this the reality in which we now live? Microsoft or
Hackers...which is worse?

 

[Pegasus \(MVP\)]

...from Microsoft? If someone can submit to me a practical solution besides
turning off Auto-updates, I will do it. I never want to have my pc break
from Microsoft pushing untested mal-ware.....err...security patches ever
again. Is there an alternative to turning off updates, and waiting to see if
anyone gets screwed? Is this the reality in which we now live? Microsoft or
Hackers...which is worse?

If you don't like automatic updates, what's wrong with
turning them off? MS give you the option - use it instead
of complaining!

 

[Just Bob]

...from Microsoft? If someone can submit to me a practical solution
besides turning off Auto-updates, I will do it. I never want to have
my pc break from Microsoft pushing untested
mal-ware.....err...security patches ever again. Is there an
alternative to turning off updates, and waiting to see if anyone gets
screwed? Is this the reality in which we now live? Microsoft or
Hackers...which is worse?

Why would you want updates anyway? They are only so called 'Security'
patches that keep you coming back for more forever.I have disabled this
feature long ago. If you look at installed programs and click on the updates
box you will see all the useless updates. More than the total amount of
programs installed otherwise. Security updates they call them but many
wonder in which direction Microsoft ComputerLand Security forces will go to
keep accessing and compromising your System. Try reading the TOS and see
what is agreed to when Windows is installed. I challenge anyone to show how
the update farce has stopped one hacker. Most don't even use Microsoft
firewall and opt for the third party route. Think about it. What incentive
does Microsoft have to release anything out of the box that has any true
value. Third party is always the way to go because of competition. Like
getting a new system. You first have to remove the 'Trail" software and if
smart format and reinstall with your own customized version of the OS. Yet
not many do this and continue to compound their grief by leaving the System
'As Is'. Dumping Internet Explorer would also be wise if one is concerned
about security. Almost any onther browser would be preferable. Use a
software firewall that lets you know what is going out is just as important
as what is coming in. Ready an arsenal of anti-malware/Spyware applications
and configure them to work for you and you will be fine.

 

[Guest]

What's wrong?!? I'll tell you what's wrong! Every piece of MS literature
your read on the subject encourages yout to leave it on full auto (download
and update). Microsoft security center, complains at you constanly if you
don't have updates on auto. Everything microsoft tells you creates the
appearacne that if you don't have it on, you are endangering yourself. Is
this false? Is anything I've said untrue or misconstrued? WHo's being
honest with themselves here? Me or the MVP with postcount induced MS myopia.
Tell me Mr forum MVP...DO YOU HAVE AUTO UPDATES TURNED ON?

 

[Alias]

What's wrong?!? I'll tell you what's wrong! Every piece of MS literature
your read on the subject encourages yout to leave it on full auto (download
and update).

They lie.

Microsoft security center, complains at you constanly if you
don't have updates on auto.

Ignore it.

Everything microsoft tells you creates the
appearacne that if you don't have it on, you are endangering yourself. Is
this false?
Yes.

Is anything I've said untrue or misconstrued? WHo's being
honest with themselves here? Me or the MVP with postcount induced MS myopia.
Tell me Mr forum MVP...DO YOU HAVE AUTO UPDATES TURNED ON?

No, and I never will.

Alias

 

[John Barnett MVP]

Actually, as pegasus rightly says, Microsoft give you the option of turning
off auto updates. Microsoft are not forcing you to update your pc, the final
decision is yours.

If you opt out of auto updates your system 'could' be at risk. Again it is
up to you whether you take this risk or not.

As for having windows updates 'turned on', I cannot speak for any other MVP
but, in my case, the answer is an unequivocal Yes. It was switched on from
the very first beta editions of XP and has remained on right to this day.


--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org

The information in this post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any kind,
either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,
reliability or content of this post. The Author shall not be liable for any
direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the use
of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this post..

 

[kurttrail]

...from Microsoft? If someone can submit to me a practical solution
besides turning off Auto-updates, I will do it. I never want to have
my pc break from Microsoft pushing untested
mal-ware.....err...security patches ever again. Is there an
alternative to turning off updates, and waiting to see if anyone gets
screwed? Is this the reality in which we now live? Microsoft or
Hackers...which is worse?

http://comsense.microscum.com

--
Peace!
Kurt Kirsch
Self-anointed Moderator
http://microscum.com
"It'll soon shake your Windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'."

 

[Guest]

Thank you kurt for your web link.....I have it marked as one of my favorites
now. I think you approach outlined in "common sense computing" will be what
I follow from now on.

 

[Rock]

...from Microsoft? If someone can submit to me a practical solution besides
turning off Auto-updates, I will do it. I never want to have my pc break
from Microsoft pushing untested mal-ware.....err...security patches ever
again. Is there an alternative to turning off updates, and waiting to see if
anyone gets screwed? Is this the reality in which we now live? Microsoft or
Hackers...which is worse?

Turn off automatic updates if you don't want it, and tell the security
center to not alert about it being off - or set AU to notify when
available but don't download/install. Go to windows update. Select the
ones you want. Download/install one at a time.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

...from Microsoft? If someone can submit to me a practical solution besides
turning off Auto-updates, I will do it. I never want to have my pc break
from Microsoft pushing untested mal-ware.....err...security patches ever
again. Is there an alternative to turning off updates, and waiting to see if
anyone gets screwed? Is this the reality in which we now live? Microsoft or
Hackers...which is worse?

I really don't like to see people use the Automatic Updates, unless
they take precautions to ensure that no patches get installed without
the user's express permission, given only after he/she has researched
each individual patch to ensure that it applies and is necessary. Due
to the nearly infinite number of possible combinations of hardware,
device drivers, and applications on any given PC, it's impossible to
guarantee that all patches will be 100% harmless. In a very small
number of cases, patches and hotfixes can cause conflicts or other
problems. So, as with all changes to an OS, caution is advised.

All "Critical" updates should be installed. These address serious
issues that can affect a large number of computers. There will be only
rare occasions when a Critical update will not apply. Of special
importance are those that address security vulnerabilities. If people
had installed the available critical updates in July of 2003, the
Blaster and Welchia worms would not have spread throughout the Internet
the following month. In the unlikely event that problems do develop,
you can always use the Control Panel's Add/Remove Programs applet or a
System Restore Point to uninstall the troublesome hotfix.

For the "Recommended" updates, simply study the information
provided to see if these updates apply in your specific situation. If
they don't apply, or you're not experiencing the problem(s) addressed,
you needn't install them. For instance, I have no use for WinXP's
MovieMaker, so I ignore any updates to it. Again, in the unlikely
event that problems do develop, you can always use the Control Panel's
Add/Remove Programs applet or a System Restore Point to uninstall the
troublesome hotfix.

In general, though, I've found it best not to download the
"Driver" updates from Windows Update, unless they're for a hardware
device originally manufactured by Microsoft. Device drivers provided
by each component's manufacturer's web site are likely to perform
better and offer more features than will the watered-down, "generic"
drivers that those manufacturers provide to Microsoft for distribution
via Windows Update.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

 

[Bruce Chambers]

What's wrong?!? I'll tell you what's wrong! Every piece of MS literature
your read on the subject encourages yout to leave it on full auto (download
and update).

That's because Microsoft has concluded (correctly, in my experience)
that the overwhelming majority of their users are either too lazy or too
unknowledgeable to be trusted to manage their own computers safely. So
they err on the side of caution, knowing that every great
once-in-a-while a patch might cause problems for a minuscule percentage
of the 100's of millions of installation, so that the majority of their
customers will be patched and protected. It's a calculated risk that
hasn't failed, yet.

Microsoft security center, complains at you constanly if you
don't have updates on auto.

That's a mindlessly simple adjustment, if it really bothers you.

Everything microsoft tells you creates the
appearacne that if you don't have it on, you are endangering yourself. Is
this false?

For which specific customer?

Is anything I've said untrue or misconstrued?

It's awfully narrow-minded. There are several essential components to
computer security: a knowledgeable and pro-active user, a properly
configured firewall, reliable and up-to-date anti-virus software, and
the prompt repair (via patches, hotfixes, or service packs) of any known
vulnerabilities. The weakest link in this "equation" is, of course, the
computer user. No software manufacturer can -- nor should they be
expected to -- protect the computer user from him/herself. All too many
people have bought into the various PC/software manufacturers marketing
claims of easy computing. They believe that their computer should be no
harder to use than a toaster oven; they have neither the inclination or
desire to learn how to safely use their computer. All too few people
keep their anti-virus software current, install patches in a timely
manner. All too often, the only thing protecting the rest of the
Internet from these "obliviots" are the automatic updates.

WHo's being
honest with themselves here?

Well, you certainly seem to be fooling yourself, if no one else.

Tell me Mr forum MVP...DO YOU HAVE AUTO UPDATES TURNED ON?

Nope. I know better than to trust my computer's well-being, and my
livelihood, to any corporate or government entity; but I'm a rarity,
these days: I much prefer self-reliance over the nanny society that so
many others seem to prefer.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

 

[Jone Doe]

"Untested mal-ware"? If you don't like the way MS notifies you, change
that. You don't want it to do it automatically, turn it off. But please
don't say things which are not true. It makes you look like an idiot.
Unless, or course, you are.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

"Untested mal-ware"? If you don't like the way MS notifies you, change
that. You don't want it to do it automatically, turn it off. But please
don't say things which are not true. It makes you look like an idiot.
Unless, or course, you are.

Reply to the wrong post?


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

 

[Mac]

BS

That's because Microsoft has concluded (correctly, in my experience) that
the overwhelming majority of their users are either too lazy or too
unknowledgeable to be trusted to manage their own computers safely. So
they err on the side of caution, knowing that every great once-in-a-while
a patch might cause problems for a minuscule percentage of the 100's of
millions of installation, so that the majority of their customers will be
patched and protected. It's a calculated risk that hasn't failed, yet.




That's a mindlessly simple adjustment, if it really bothers you.




For which specific customer?




It's awfully narrow-minded. There are several essential components to
computer security: a knowledgeable and pro-active user, a properly
configured firewall, reliable and up-to-date anti-virus software, and the
prompt repair (via patches, hotfixes, or service packs) of any known
vulnerabilities. The weakest link in this "equation" is, of course, the
computer user. No software manufacturer can -- nor should they be expected
to -- protect the computer user from him/herself. All too many people
have bought into the various PC/software manufacturers marketing claims of
easy computing. They believe that their computer should be no harder to
use than a toaster oven; they have neither the inclination or desire to
learn how to safely use their computer. All too few people keep their
anti-virus software current, install patches in a timely manner. All too
often, the only thing protecting the rest of the Internet from these
"obliviots" are the automatic updates.




Well, you certainly seem to be fooling yourself, if no one else.




Nope. I know better than to trust my computer's well-being, and my
livelihood, to any corporate or government entity; but I'm a rarity, these
days: I much prefer self-reliance over the nanny society that so many
others seem to prefer.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

 

[Manny Borges]

Well Mac, that was well thought out reply to a meaningful and detailed
response from Bruce .

I hope you didn't get a finger cramp.
--
--
Manny Borges
MCSE NT4-2003 (+ Security)
MCT, Certified Cheese Master

People say "life is short".
What?
Life is the longest damn thing anyone ever does!
What can you do thats longer?

 

[Manny Borges]

No, he is talking about your mal-ware comment.

It was a fairly sophmoric remark.

Microsoft is in the unenviable percieved position of being the big evil
company with the most insecure platform in the world.

We both know that as Macs get a larger install base and Linux grows in
poularity they are becoming bigger and bigger targets, but that since MS
systems are so proliferant, they are they prime target of unsavory
individuals.

Because they are so successful and widely installed there are more people
trying, and succedding in breaking into thier systems.

Hence the perception.

Now they have to try and mitigate security risks.

They can either do nothing and have evreyione saying how MS doesn't care
about its users.

Or they can devote substantial resources to constantly trying to conteract
not only actual threats, but potential threats. And then to get the system
patched before any type of breach happens.

(to all those tards out there who are thinking: "these breaches shouldn't be
possible in the first place", go write an OS that can do what XP can do or
STFU)

Ocasionaly a patch causes issues for a small percentage of users. It will
happen.

To call these patches malware is an misleading and fairly ingnorant
statement. I know you usually are niether, so take it as constructive
critisism.


I am not defending some of the stupid things that have come down, like the
recent patch that messed up systems with the HP share to web software
installed.

That was a silly oversight.

--
--
Manny Borges
MCSE NT4-2003 (+ Security)
MCT, Certified Cheese Master

People say "life is short".
What?
Life is the longest damn thing anyone ever does!
What can you do thats longer?

 

[Bruce Chambers]

No, he is talking about your mal-ware comment.

I didn't make any "mal-ware" commet; that was made by the OP and
included in the post that I'd quoted. Check the thread, again.

It was a fairly sophmoric remark.

True, it was a bit on the lame side, but I saw no point in further
pointing out the OP's lack of imagination.

Microsoft is in the unenviable percieved position of being the big evil
company with the most insecure platform in the world.

Again, true. But why tell me?

We both know that as Macs get a larger install base and Linux grows in
poularity they are becoming bigger and bigger targets, but that since MS
systems are so proliferant, they are they prime target of unsavory
individuals.

I think I'd replace that ".... as Macs get a...." with a "... If Macs
ever get a....," but you're correct, again, and preaching to the choir.
Who's going to bother trying to compromise 2-3% of the world's desktop
market when he can aim for 95%?

Because they are so successful and widely installed there are more people
trying, and succedding in breaking into thier systems.

Hence the perception.

Now they have to try and mitigate security risks.

They can either do nothing and have evreyione saying how MS doesn't care
about its users.

Or they can devote substantial resources to constantly trying to conteract
not only actual threats, but potential threats. And then to get the system
patched before any type of breach happens.

(to all those tards out there who are thinking: "these breaches shouldn't be
possible in the first place", go write an OS that can do what XP can do or
STFU)

Ocasionaly a patch causes issues for a small percentage of users. It will
happen.

To call these patches malware is an misleading and fairly ingnorant
statement.

You're still clearly confusing me with the OP.

I know you usually are niether, so take it as constructive
critisism.


I am not defending some of the stupid things that have come down, like the
recent patch that messed up systems with the HP share to web software
installed.

That was a silly oversight.

Well, The whole "Share to Web" idea is also a stupid idea, just waiting
to be compromised; I won't install it on any computers I mange.



--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

 

[Don Taylor]

What's wrong?!? I'll tell you what's wrong! Every piece of MS literature
your read on the subject encourages yout to leave it on full auto (download
and update).

Perhaps something more wrong than that:

The average user, even the experienced user, maybe even the
professional psychic user if you REALLY REALLY want to be ABSOLUTELY
POSTITIVE about it, hasn't got a chance in the world of knowing
whether a patch is going to be safe in his case or not.
You just pray, and even God won't help you with this one.

I actually have one machine that is fairly close to the others in
the office. But it is free to sacrifice, if it catches fire I just
write it off. I try all the patches on it, fiddle with it a
bit, test the usual things that are needed to work, see if I can
detect any problems, and if not then I'll update the rest.

And that didn't appear to be enough this time.