When Automatic Updates can be harmful

D

Doug Kanter

From Brian Livingston's "Windows Secrets" Newsletter


When Automatic Updates can be harmful

By Woody Leonhard

For years I've been advising Windows consumers to disable Automatic Updates:
Keep Microsoft's mitts off your machine until you're darn sure the proffered
patches do more good than harm.

I've taken a lot of flak for that heretical stance, vilified for intimating
that Microsoft's patching process leaves consumers in the lurch. Bah. Recent
events have proved my point conclusively: Windows auto-update is for chumps.

The auto-update process

Take a second right now to check your auto update settings. Click Start,
Control Panel, Security Center. Don't click the Automatic Updates bar at the
top - Microsoft has the dialog box rigged to turn on auto-updating if you
click around indiscriminately. Instead, click the "Automatic Updates" line
at the bottom of the Security Center. Windows shows you an official-looking
dialog box - "Help Protect Your PC," it says - with a cheerful good green
shield at the top and a naughty bad red shield at the bottom.

If you're setting up Windows for your Great-Aunt Millicent who frets that
playing Solitaire will lock up her PC, go ahead and click "Automatic
(recommended)" and resign yourself to your technical co-dependent
relationship.

But if you're even moderately conversant with Windows - certainly if you're
reading this newsletter - check one of the other buttons. I recommend
"Notify me but don't automatically download or install them." That way I
have two chances to catch myself before installing everything Microsoft
pushes out the Patch Tuesday door.

With auto updates disabled, the next time Microsoft has a "critical" patch
that it wants to push onto your machine, a balloon will pop up out of a
yellow shield in the system tray, next to the clock at the bottom of the
screen. The balloon will ask your permission to download and/or install
whatever software Microsoft has on offer. Your job is to refrain from giving
that permission until millions of clueless Windows users have an, uh,
opportunity to beta test Microsoft's latest missives.

What happened last month, Part I

Permit me to summarize the Windows Automatic Updates Out-of-Box Experience
of the past month, from a consumer's perspective.

On April 11, 2006 - a Patch Tuesday that will live in infamy - Microsoft
released four collections of patches. Two were relatively innocuous, at
least for Windows consumers.

One of the patch collections, MS06-016 (917288), "patched" Outlook Express
on some PCs so well that OE couldn't open its address book.

Many people who had Windows set for automatic updating got up one morning,
sat down at their PCs, downloaded their mail, and suddenly discovered that
they couldn't reply to messages. Every time they tried to get into their
address books, Windows just sat there. Without their knowledge, Microsoft
had simply reached into their PCs and broken Outlook Express. No warning. No
thank you very much. No nuthin'.

The other patch collection, MS06-015 (911562) contained a new, inadequately
tested Mr. Hyde version of a program called verclsid.exe that wreaked all
sorts of havoc on some machines:

.. Windows Explorer would freeze when attempting to get into My Documents or
My Pictures.

.. Word and Excel would freeze when trying to open or save a doc in My
Documents.

.. Internet Explorer would freeze unless you typed http:// in front of a Web
address.

And so on. Microsoft's lengthy error list is at KB 918165. That article
currently sits at version 4.2, having undergone three major revisions and
then some - a sure sign that the error list itself had numerous errors.

Although the MS06-015 patch was officially released on Tuesday, Apr. 11, it
wasn't pushed out the Automatic Update chute in the U.S. until that Saturday
or Sunday. Lots of people trying to finish their income taxes over that
last-minute April 15 "tax weekend" ran scrambling for alternatives when they
discovered they couldn't use Excel or Internet Explorer.

What happened last month, Part II

Last month's auto-update debacle doesn't stop there. For the first time in
history, Microsoft released a passel of three more patches, out of cycle,
two weeks after Patch Tuesday. Except, er, uh, two of the three "critical
patches" weren't really critical patches at all.

The first patch patched the MS06-015 patch by jiggering a couple of Registry
settings. Microsoft gave fair warning - the fix was widely anticipated and
appears to stop the insanity generated by the original patch. Victimized
Windows consumers who left automatic updates on suddenly discovered, almost
two weeks after the original botch job, that Word and Excel and Windows
Explorer and Internet Explorer started working properly again. Magic.

The second mid-month out-of-sequence patch still leaves me scratching my
head. Microsoft pushed an obscure five-month-old patch through the automatic
update system, with no forewarning, no explanation, and no reason that I can
discern. That patch (900845) replaces a program called aec.sys, which is an
acoustic error-canceling driver, of all things. My guess - and it's only a
guess - is that Microsoft somehow accidentally released this patch into the
Automatic Updates food chain. Kinda makes me shudder.

The third mid-month "critical update" patch - which also got shoved onto all
PCs with automatic update activated - isn't a patch at all, critical or
otherwise. It's the new version of Windows Genuine Nagware, er, Windows
Genuine Advantage.

With this little gem installed (905474), if Microsoft's computers can't
verify your copy of Windows, your desktop gets plastered with all sorts of
irritating, incessant nags. As far as I can tell there was little, if any,
advance warning that this "critical update" (yeah, sure) was going to get
rammed down U.S. users' throats in an out-of-cycle mid-month automatic
update. I could find nothing but this press release, dated the same day
Windows Genuine Nagware spewed down the Automatic Updates chute.

From where I stand, Microsoft has shown that it'll use Automatic Updates to
shove any software change onto any system that it darn well pleases, any
time it likes. This isn't a conspiracy theory. Microsoft isn't a monolith.
There's no Big Brother or master plan behind it all, no Mini-Me lurking in
the shadows. Instead, what we're seeing is a bunch of stupid decisions,
propagated to a hundred million PCs, by people who have demonstrated,
repeatedly, that they can't be trusted with the task.

There is a better way

Keeping your PC working well is a tough job. You know that.

Big companies employ network admins who get to wrangle with Microsoft's
offal before updating company computers. It's a tough, thankless job.

But what of us lowly individual Windows consumers? We're left holding the
bag. Cannon fodder. We're the folks who get hit with the bugs - the
unwitting beta testers for Microsoft's frequently ill-prepared patches and
funny little nagware programs, too.

I say it's time for Windows consumers to take their patching destinies into
their own hands. Turn off Automatic Updates. Sit and watch and listen, and
judge for yourself when it's time to patch or not to patch. Keep your eyes
on this newsletter, on my Microsoft Patch Reliability Ratings page, watch
the newsgroups, and any other places you can find that have an independent
point of view. Listen to people you know and trust before letting Microsoft
monkey around with your PC.

My critics will have you believe that failing to patch Windows at the very
moment Microsoft pushes a patch down the automatic update chute will leave
you poor, helpless, befuddled and (worst of all!) vulnerable. Poppycock.
Microsoft itself waits to see if its newly released patches cause problems
before sending them through auto-update. The major problem: they don't wait
long enough!

Very, very few people get hit with exploits based on newly announced
security holes shortly after Microsoft's patches appear. Yes, you need to
patch your system. No, you don't need to do it right away, particularly if
you keep the rest of your security arsenal updated and working properly.

Take your time. The machine you save may be your own.
 
T

Tom [Pepper] Willett

Doug: Excellent article, and my sentiments exactly. Thanks for posting it.

Tom

| From Brian Livingston's "Windows Secrets" Newsletter
|
|
| When Automatic Updates can be harmful
|
| By Woody Leonhard
|
| For years I've been advising Windows consumers to disable Automatic
Updates:
| Keep Microsoft's mitts off your machine until you're darn sure the
proffered
| patches do more good than harm.
|
| I've taken a lot of flak for that heretical stance, vilified for
intimating
| that Microsoft's patching process leaves consumers in the lurch. Bah.
Recent
| events have proved my point conclusively: Windows auto-update is for
chumps.
|
| The auto-update process
|
| Take a second right now to check your auto update settings. Click Start,
| Control Panel, Security Center. Don't click the Automatic Updates bar at
the
| top - Microsoft has the dialog box rigged to turn on auto-updating if you
| click around indiscriminately. Instead, click the "Automatic Updates" line
| at the bottom of the Security Center. Windows shows you an
official-looking
| dialog box - "Help Protect Your PC," it says - with a cheerful good green
| shield at the top and a naughty bad red shield at the bottom.
|
| If you're setting up Windows for your Great-Aunt Millicent who frets that
| playing Solitaire will lock up her PC, go ahead and click "Automatic
| (recommended)" and resign yourself to your technical co-dependent
| relationship.
|
| But if you're even moderately conversant with Windows - certainly if
you're
| reading this newsletter - check one of the other buttons. I recommend
| "Notify me but don't automatically download or install them." That way I
| have two chances to catch myself before installing everything Microsoft
| pushes out the Patch Tuesday door.
|
| With auto updates disabled, the next time Microsoft has a "critical" patch
| that it wants to push onto your machine, a balloon will pop up out of a
| yellow shield in the system tray, next to the clock at the bottom of the
| screen. The balloon will ask your permission to download and/or install
| whatever software Microsoft has on offer. Your job is to refrain from
giving
| that permission until millions of clueless Windows users have an, uh,
| opportunity to beta test Microsoft's latest missives.
|
| What happened last month, Part I
|
| Permit me to summarize the Windows Automatic Updates Out-of-Box Experience
| of the past month, from a consumer's perspective.
|
| On April 11, 2006 - a Patch Tuesday that will live in infamy - Microsoft
| released four collections of patches. Two were relatively innocuous, at
| least for Windows consumers.
|
| One of the patch collections, MS06-016 (917288), "patched" Outlook Express
| on some PCs so well that OE couldn't open its address book.
|
| Many people who had Windows set for automatic updating got up one morning,
| sat down at their PCs, downloaded their mail, and suddenly discovered that
| they couldn't reply to messages. Every time they tried to get into their
| address books, Windows just sat there. Without their knowledge, Microsoft
| had simply reached into their PCs and broken Outlook Express. No warning.
No
| thank you very much. No nuthin'.
|
| The other patch collection, MS06-015 (911562) contained a new,
inadequately
| tested Mr. Hyde version of a program called verclsid.exe that wreaked all
| sorts of havoc on some machines:
|
| . Windows Explorer would freeze when attempting to get into My Documents
or
| My Pictures.
|
| . Word and Excel would freeze when trying to open or save a doc in My
| Documents.
|
| . Internet Explorer would freeze unless you typed http:// in front of a
Web
| address.
|
| And so on. Microsoft's lengthy error list is at KB 918165. That article
| currently sits at version 4.2, having undergone three major revisions and
| then some - a sure sign that the error list itself had numerous errors.
|
| Although the MS06-015 patch was officially released on Tuesday, Apr. 11,
it
| wasn't pushed out the Automatic Update chute in the U.S. until that
Saturday
| or Sunday. Lots of people trying to finish their income taxes over that
| last-minute April 15 "tax weekend" ran scrambling for alternatives when
they
| discovered they couldn't use Excel or Internet Explorer.
|
| What happened last month, Part II
|
| Last month's auto-update debacle doesn't stop there. For the first time in
| history, Microsoft released a passel of three more patches, out of cycle,
| two weeks after Patch Tuesday. Except, er, uh, two of the three "critical
| patches" weren't really critical patches at all.
|
| The first patch patched the MS06-015 patch by jiggering a couple of
Registry
| settings. Microsoft gave fair warning - the fix was widely anticipated and
| appears to stop the insanity generated by the original patch. Victimized
| Windows consumers who left automatic updates on suddenly discovered,
almost
| two weeks after the original botch job, that Word and Excel and Windows
| Explorer and Internet Explorer started working properly again. Magic.
|
| The second mid-month out-of-sequence patch still leaves me scratching my
| head. Microsoft pushed an obscure five-month-old patch through the
automatic
| update system, with no forewarning, no explanation, and no reason that I
can
| discern. That patch (900845) replaces a program called aec.sys, which is
an
| acoustic error-canceling driver, of all things. My guess - and it's only a
| guess - is that Microsoft somehow accidentally released this patch into
the
| Automatic Updates food chain. Kinda makes me shudder.
|
| The third mid-month "critical update" patch - which also got shoved onto
all
| PCs with automatic update activated - isn't a patch at all, critical or
| otherwise. It's the new version of Windows Genuine Nagware, er, Windows
| Genuine Advantage.
|
| With this little gem installed (905474), if Microsoft's computers can't
| verify your copy of Windows, your desktop gets plastered with all sorts of
| irritating, incessant nags. As far as I can tell there was little, if any,
| advance warning that this "critical update" (yeah, sure) was going to get
| rammed down U.S. users' throats in an out-of-cycle mid-month automatic
| update. I could find nothing but this press release, dated the same day
| Windows Genuine Nagware spewed down the Automatic Updates chute.
|
| From where I stand, Microsoft has shown that it'll use Automatic Updates
to
| shove any software change onto any system that it darn well pleases, any
| time it likes. This isn't a conspiracy theory. Microsoft isn't a monolith.
| There's no Big Brother or master plan behind it all, no Mini-Me lurking in
| the shadows. Instead, what we're seeing is a bunch of stupid decisions,
| propagated to a hundred million PCs, by people who have demonstrated,
| repeatedly, that they can't be trusted with the task.
|
| There is a better way
|
| Keeping your PC working well is a tough job. You know that.
|
| Big companies employ network admins who get to wrangle with Microsoft's
| offal before updating company computers. It's a tough, thankless job.
|
| But what of us lowly individual Windows consumers? We're left holding the
| bag. Cannon fodder. We're the folks who get hit with the bugs - the
| unwitting beta testers for Microsoft's frequently ill-prepared patches and
| funny little nagware programs, too.
|
| I say it's time for Windows consumers to take their patching destinies
into
| their own hands. Turn off Automatic Updates. Sit and watch and listen, and
| judge for yourself when it's time to patch or not to patch. Keep your eyes
| on this newsletter, on my Microsoft Patch Reliability Ratings page, watch
| the newsgroups, and any other places you can find that have an independent
| point of view. Listen to people you know and trust before letting
Microsoft
| monkey around with your PC.
|
| My critics will have you believe that failing to patch Windows at the very
| moment Microsoft pushes a patch down the automatic update chute will leave
| you poor, helpless, befuddled and (worst of all!) vulnerable. Poppycock.
| Microsoft itself waits to see if its newly released patches cause problems
| before sending them through auto-update. The major problem: they don't
wait
| long enough!
|
| Very, very few people get hit with exploits based on newly announced
| security holes shortly after Microsoft's patches appear. Yes, you need to
| patch your system. No, you don't need to do it right away, particularly if
| you keep the rest of your security arsenal updated and working properly.
|
| Take your time. The machine you save may be your own.
|
|
 
T

Terry

On 5/11/2006 1:47 PM On a whim, Doug Kanter pounded out on the keyboard

I say it's time for Windows consumers to take their patching destinies into
their own hands. Turn off Automatic Updates. Sit and watch and listen, and
judge for yourself when it's time to patch or not to patch. Keep your eyes
on this newsletter, on my Microsoft Patch Reliability Ratings page, watch
the newsgroups, and any other places you can find that have an independent
point of view. Listen to people you know and trust before letting Microsoft
monkey around with your PC.

My critics will have you believe that failing to patch Windows at the very
moment Microsoft pushes a patch down the automatic update chute will leave
you poor, helpless, befuddled and (worst of all!) vulnerable. Poppycock.
Microsoft itself waits to see if its newly released patches cause problems
before sending them through auto-update. The major problem: they don't wait
long enough!

Very, very few people get hit with exploits based on newly announced
security holes shortly after Microsoft's patches appear. Yes, you need to
patch your system. No, you don't need to do it right away, particularly if
you keep the rest of your security arsenal updated and working properly.

Take your time. The machine you save may be your own.

Hi Doug,

Good reading. After having minor issues with the April updates (Firefox
would not launch) I questioned whether I wanted auto-updates any
further. Today my question was answered.

Last night at shut down, Windows installed two updates. This morning I
boot up and the first thing I get after login is
Error
Stream read error
OK

OK WHAT? So I try to open Firefox to do a search on the error. Nothing.
Thinking it was my error I dbl-clicked again. Nothing. Opened Task
Manager and found two instances of FF running. I tried to end process
on both but neither would close. So I rebooted.

The first thing that came up was a disk check. My data drive. It took
over 5 minutes to get to 1 percent and then took over 30 minutes to
complete (usually that process only takes about 20 seconds). It stated
no errors found. The whole time I'm thinking these updates have wiped
out my system. It appears to be working now but I'm not going to go
through that again.

MS can experiment on others first.

--
Terry

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
 
A

All Things Mopar

Today Doug Kanter attempted to dazzle everyone with this
profound linguistic utterance
From Brian Livingston's "Windows Secrets" Newsletter


When Automatic Updates can be harmful

By Woody Leonhard

For years I've been advising Windows consumers to disable
Automatic Updates: Keep Microsoft's mitts off your machine
until you're darn sure the proffered patches do more good
than harm.

I've taken a lot of flak for that heretical stance,
vilified for intimating that Microsoft's patching process
leaves consumers in the lurch. Bah. Recent events have
proved my point conclusively: Windows auto-update is for
chumps.

The auto-update process

Take a second right now to check your auto update settings.
Click Start, Control Panel, Security Center. Don't click
the Automatic Updates bar at the top - Microsoft has the
dialog box rigged to turn on auto-updating if you click
around indiscriminately. Instead, click the "Automatic
Updates" line at the bottom of the Security Center. Windows
shows you an official-looking dialog box - "Help Protect
Your PC," it says - with a cheerful good green shield at
the top and a naughty bad red shield at the bottom.

If you're setting up Windows for your Great-Aunt Millicent
who frets that playing Solitaire will lock up her PC, go
ahead and click "Automatic (recommended)" and resign
yourself to your technical co-dependent relationship.

But if you're even moderately conversant with Windows -
certainly if you're reading this newsletter - check one of
the other buttons. I recommend "Notify me but don't
automatically download or install them." That way I have
two chances to catch myself before installing everything
Microsoft pushes out the Patch Tuesday door.

With auto updates disabled, the next time Microsoft has a
"critical" patch that it wants to push onto your machine, a
balloon will pop up out of a yellow shield in the system
tray, next to the clock at the bottom of the screen. The
balloon will ask your permission to download and/or install
whatever software Microsoft has on offer. Your job is to
refrain from giving that permission until millions of
clueless Windows users have an, uh, opportunity to beta
test Microsoft's latest missives.

What happened last month, Part I

Permit me to summarize the Windows Automatic Updates
Out-of-Box Experience of the past month, from a consumer's
perspective.

On April 11, 2006 - a Patch Tuesday that will live in
infamy - Microsoft released four collections of patches.
Two were relatively innocuous, at least for Windows
consumers.

One of the patch collections, MS06-016 (917288), "patched"
Outlook Express on some PCs so well that OE couldn't open
its address book.

Many people who had Windows set for automatic updating got
up one morning, sat down at their PCs, downloaded their
mail, and suddenly discovered that they couldn't reply to
messages. Every time they tried to get into their address
books, Windows just sat there. Without their knowledge,
Microsoft had simply reached into their PCs and broken
Outlook Express. No warning. No thank you very much. No
nuthin'.

The other patch collection, MS06-015 (911562) contained a
new, inadequately tested Mr. Hyde version of a program
called verclsid.exe that wreaked all sorts of havoc on some
machines:

. Windows Explorer would freeze when attempting to get into
My Documents or My Pictures.

. Word and Excel would freeze when trying to open or save a
doc in My Documents.

. Internet Explorer would freeze unless you typed http://
in front of a Web address.

And so on. Microsoft's lengthy error list is at KB 918165.
That article currently sits at version 4.2, having
undergone three major revisions and then some - a sure sign
that the error list itself had numerous errors.

Although the MS06-015 patch was officially released on
Tuesday, Apr. 11, it wasn't pushed out the Automatic Update
chute in the U.S. until that Saturday or Sunday. Lots of
people trying to finish their income taxes over that
last-minute April 15 "tax weekend" ran scrambling for
alternatives when they discovered they couldn't use Excel
or Internet Explorer.

What happened last month, Part II

Last month's auto-update debacle doesn't stop there. For
the first time in history, Microsoft released a passel of
three more patches, out of cycle, two weeks after Patch
Tuesday. Except, er, uh, two of the three "critical
patches" weren't really critical patches at all.

The first patch patched the MS06-015 patch by jiggering a
couple of Registry settings. Microsoft gave fair warning -
the fix was widely anticipated and appears to stop the
insanity generated by the original patch. Victimized
Windows consumers who left automatic updates on suddenly
discovered, almost two weeks after the original botch job,
that Word and Excel and Windows Explorer and Internet
Explorer started working properly again. Magic.

The second mid-month out-of-sequence patch still leaves me
scratching my head. Microsoft pushed an obscure
five-month-old patch through the automatic update system,
with no forewarning, no explanation, and no reason that I
can discern. That patch (900845) replaces a program called
aec.sys, which is an acoustic error-canceling driver, of
all things. My guess - and it's only a guess - is that
Microsoft somehow accidentally released this patch into the
Automatic Updates food chain. Kinda makes me shudder.

The third mid-month "critical update" patch - which also
got shoved onto all PCs with automatic update activated -
isn't a patch at all, critical or otherwise. It's the new
version of Windows Genuine Nagware, er, Windows Genuine
Advantage.

With this little gem installed (905474), if Microsoft's
computers can't verify your copy of Windows, your desktop
gets plastered with all sorts of irritating, incessant
nags. As far as I can tell there was little, if any,
advance warning that this "critical update" (yeah, sure)
was going to get rammed down U.S. users' throats in an
out-of-cycle mid-month automatic update. I could find
nothing but this press release, dated the same day Windows
Genuine Nagware spewed down the Automatic Updates chute.

From where I stand, Microsoft has shown that it'll use
Automatic Updates to shove any software change onto any
system that it darn well pleases, any time it likes. This
isn't a conspiracy theory. Microsoft isn't a monolith.
There's no Big Brother or master plan behind it all, no
Mini-Me lurking in the shadows. Instead, what we're seeing
is a bunch of stupid decisions, propagated to a hundred
million PCs, by people who have demonstrated, repeatedly,
that they can't be trusted with the task.

There is a better way

Keeping your PC working well is a tough job. You know that.

Big companies employ network admins who get to wrangle with
Microsoft's offal before updating company computers. It's a
tough, thankless job.

But what of us lowly individual Windows consumers? We're
left holding the bag. Cannon fodder. We're the folks who
get hit with the bugs - the unwitting beta testers for
Microsoft's frequently ill-prepared patches and funny
little nagware programs, too.

I say it's time for Windows consumers to take their
patching destinies into their own hands. Turn off Automatic
Updates. Sit and watch and listen, and judge for yourself
when it's time to patch or not to patch. Keep your eyes on
this newsletter, on my Microsoft Patch Reliability Ratings
page, watch the newsgroups, and any other places you can
find that have an independent point of view. Listen to
people you know and trust before letting Microsoft monkey
around with your PC.

My critics will have you believe that failing to patch
Windows at the very moment Microsoft pushes a patch down
the automatic update chute will leave you poor, helpless,
befuddled and (worst of all!) vulnerable. Poppycock.
Microsoft itself waits to see if its newly released patches
cause problems before sending them through auto-update. The
major problem: they don't wait long enough!

Very, very few people get hit with exploits based on newly
announced security holes shortly after Microsoft's patches
appear. Yes, you need to patch your system. No, you don't
need to do it right away, particularly if you keep the rest
of your security arsenal updated and working properly.

Take your time. The machine you save may be your own.
I fully agree. automatic updates for anything from anybody are
/always/ bad. Which reminds me of a exam quiz hint I got while
in college:

"if a True/False question has the words 'always' or 'never',
it is ALWAYS false!"
 
K

kurttrail

Doug said:
From Brian Livingston's "Windows Secrets" Newsletter


When Automatic Updates can be harmful

By Woody Leonhard

For years I've been advising Windows consumers to disable Automatic
Updates: Keep Microsoft's mitts off your machine until you're darn
sure the proffered patches do more good than harm.

I've taken a lot of flak for that heretical stance, vilified for
intimating that Microsoft's patching process leaves consumers in the
lurch. Bah. Recent events have proved my point conclusively: Windows
auto-update is for chumps.
The auto-update process

Take a second right now to check your auto update settings. Click
Start, Control Panel, Security Center. Don't click the Automatic
Updates bar at the top - Microsoft has the dialog box rigged to turn
on auto-updating if you click around indiscriminately. Instead, click
the "Automatic Updates" line at the bottom of the Security Center.
Windows shows you an official-looking dialog box - "Help Protect Your
PC," it says - with a cheerful good green shield at the top and a
naughty bad red shield at the bottom.
If you're setting up Windows for your Great-Aunt Millicent who frets
that playing Solitaire will lock up her PC, go ahead and click
"Automatic (recommended)" and resign yourself to your technical
co-dependent relationship.

But if you're even moderately conversant with Windows - certainly if
you're reading this newsletter - check one of the other buttons. I
recommend "Notify me but don't automatically download or install
them." That way I have two chances to catch myself before installing
everything Microsoft pushes out the Patch Tuesday door.

With auto updates disabled, the next time Microsoft has a "critical"
patch that it wants to push onto your machine, a balloon will pop up
out of a yellow shield in the system tray, next to the clock at the
bottom of the screen. The balloon will ask your permission to
download and/or install whatever software Microsoft has on offer.
Your job is to refrain from giving that permission until millions of
clueless Windows users have an, uh, opportunity to beta test
Microsoft's latest missives.
What happened last month, Part I

Permit me to summarize the Windows Automatic Updates Out-of-Box
Experience of the past month, from a consumer's perspective.

On April 11, 2006 - a Patch Tuesday that will live in infamy -
Microsoft released four collections of patches. Two were relatively
innocuous, at least for Windows consumers.

One of the patch collections, MS06-016 (917288), "patched" Outlook
Express on some PCs so well that OE couldn't open its address book.

Many people who had Windows set for automatic updating got up one
morning, sat down at their PCs, downloaded their mail, and suddenly
discovered that they couldn't reply to messages. Every time they
tried to get into their address books, Windows just sat there.
Without their knowledge, Microsoft had simply reached into their PCs
and broken Outlook Express. No warning. No thank you very much. No
nuthin'.
The other patch collection, MS06-015 (911562) contained a new,
inadequately tested Mr. Hyde version of a program called verclsid.exe
that wreaked all sorts of havoc on some machines:

. Windows Explorer would freeze when attempting to get into My
Documents or My Pictures.

. Word and Excel would freeze when trying to open or save a doc in My
Documents.

. Internet Explorer would freeze unless you typed http:// in front of
a Web address.

And so on. Microsoft's lengthy error list is at KB 918165. That
article currently sits at version 4.2, having undergone three major
revisions and then some - a sure sign that the error list itself had
numerous errors.
Although the MS06-015 patch was officially released on Tuesday, Apr.
11, it wasn't pushed out the Automatic Update chute in the U.S. until
that Saturday or Sunday. Lots of people trying to finish their income
taxes over that last-minute April 15 "tax weekend" ran scrambling for
alternatives when they discovered they couldn't use Excel or Internet
Explorer.
What happened last month, Part II

Last month's auto-update debacle doesn't stop there. For the first
time in history, Microsoft released a passel of three more patches,
out of cycle, two weeks after Patch Tuesday. Except, er, uh, two of
the three "critical patches" weren't really critical patches at all.

The first patch patched the MS06-015 patch by jiggering a couple of
Registry settings. Microsoft gave fair warning - the fix was widely
anticipated and appears to stop the insanity generated by the
original patch. Victimized Windows consumers who left automatic
updates on suddenly discovered, almost two weeks after the original
botch job, that Word and Excel and Windows Explorer and Internet
Explorer started working properly again. Magic.
The second mid-month out-of-sequence patch still leaves me scratching
my head. Microsoft pushed an obscure five-month-old patch through the
automatic update system, with no forewarning, no explanation, and no
reason that I can discern. That patch (900845) replaces a program
called aec.sys, which is an acoustic error-canceling driver, of all
things. My guess - and it's only a guess - is that Microsoft somehow
accidentally released this patch into the Automatic Updates food
chain. Kinda makes me shudder.
The third mid-month "critical update" patch - which also got shoved
onto all PCs with automatic update activated - isn't a patch at all,
critical or otherwise. It's the new version of Windows Genuine
Nagware, er, Windows Genuine Advantage.

With this little gem installed (905474), if Microsoft's computers
can't verify your copy of Windows, your desktop gets plastered with
all sorts of irritating, incessant nags. As far as I can tell there
was little, if any, advance warning that this "critical update"
(yeah, sure) was going to get rammed down U.S. users' throats in an
out-of-cycle mid-month automatic update. I could find nothing but
this press release, dated the same day Windows Genuine Nagware spewed
down the Automatic Updates chute.
From where I stand, Microsoft has shown that it'll use Automatic
Updates to shove any software change onto any system that it darn
well pleases, any time it likes. This isn't a conspiracy theory.
Microsoft isn't a monolith. There's no Big Brother or master plan
behind it all, no Mini-Me lurking in the shadows. Instead, what we're
seeing is a bunch of stupid decisions, propagated to a hundred
million PCs, by people who have demonstrated, repeatedly, that they
can't be trusted with the task.
There is a better way

Keeping your PC working well is a tough job. You know that.

Big companies employ network admins who get to wrangle with
Microsoft's offal before updating company computers. It's a tough,
thankless job.
But what of us lowly individual Windows consumers? We're left holding
the bag. Cannon fodder. We're the folks who get hit with the bugs -
the unwitting beta testers for Microsoft's frequently ill-prepared
patches and funny little nagware programs, too.

I say it's time for Windows consumers to take their patching
destinies into their own hands. Turn off Automatic Updates. Sit and
watch and listen, and judge for yourself when it's time to patch or
not to patch. Keep your eyes on this newsletter, on my Microsoft
Patch Reliability Ratings page, watch the newsgroups, and any other
places you can find that have an independent point of view. Listen to
people you know and trust before letting Microsoft monkey around with
your PC.
My critics will have you believe that failing to patch Windows at the
very moment Microsoft pushes a patch down the automatic update chute
will leave you poor, helpless, befuddled and (worst of all!)
vulnerable. Poppycock. Microsoft itself waits to see if its newly
released patches cause problems before sending them through
auto-update. The major problem: they don't wait long enough!

Very, very few people get hit with exploits based on newly announced
security holes shortly after Microsoft's patches appear. Yes, you
need to patch your system. No, you don't need to do it right away,
particularly if you keep the rest of your security arsenal updated
and working properly.
Take your time. The machine you save may be your own.

Good article. Automatic Update is great in theory, totally awful in
practice.

--
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'."
 
A

antioch

Hello Doug
Thank you for bringing this thoughtful and very logically put together
observation and advice regarding MS updates.
I do not think there was anything in it that can be disputed. For a novice
computer user it is refreshing to read such an article.
Even an MS mouthpiece would have to remain silent.
I was advised nearly 12 months ago by an MVP to be cautious of MS updates.
As he said that it was dangerous for a complete novice not to wait and see.
I did on all those updates as I have before.
I even posted one or two warnings when I first saw someone in trouble in a
group. I then had two frequent posters/helpers jump on me.
'What probs - nobody is having problems - what do you know anyway - ranter -
MS sceptic'. I suggested they did a bit of research. One replied 'I always
do my research - I do a lot of research. Well the prat hadn't done this
time, as the number of disgruntled posters proved. And these same persons
still open their mouths without first engaging their brains.
They know themselves for what they are.
I will certainly keep a watch in that newsletter - the link is in my
favourites. Thanks again.
Rgds
Antioch
 
A

antioch

Why not - what makes them more acceptable than any other update.
What makes them a more reliable type of update/patch.??
I would like to read your reasons.
I even wait a day or two before I let antispy beta1 be updated.
I wouldn't dream of updating/upgrading it with defender though.
Rgds
Antioch
 
R

R. McCarty

The reason for AV being excluded is what definitions do. They
don't change/alter the basic functionality of the scanning engine.
They (defs) are simply additional signatures to catch the latest
documented threats. One reason, I'm not overly concerned with
updates/patches is my system is imaged almost weekly. So even
if a patch/update is a miss-fire, I can back it out completely in
about 4 minutes. Part of my standard client setup now is to have
Acronis True Image setup with a incremental personal backup
daily and a full system partition weekly. I advise customers to
burn image sets to CD/DVD on a minimum quarterly basis. I
also keep their delivered state system image in a company fire
proof safe, so they have a minimum off-site level of protection.
Along with AV defs, I also have few issues with AdAware or
Spybot. Defender I still keep on a short leash and monitor the
NG's for any issues with it. That being said I still do not setup
my own system or customers to receive Sun Java, Shockwave
or Adobe Reader updates automatically.
 
B

Bruce Chambers

Doug said:
From Brian Livingston's "Windows Secrets" Newsletter

Was there a question there? (I'm sure that anyone interested in Mr.
Livingston's opinions would already have been subscribed to his newsletter.)


--

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
 
K

kurttrail

Bruce said:
Was there a question there? (I'm sure that anyone interested in Mr.
Livingston's opinions would already have been subscribed to his
newsletter.)

LOL! Do you have Auto Update enabled on your own computer?

--
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'."
 
S

steam3801

The reason for AV being excluded is what definitions do. They
don't change/alter the basic functionality of the scanning engine.
They (defs) are simply additional signatures to catch the latest
documented threats. One reason, I'm not overly concerned with
updates/patches is my system is imaged almost weekly. So even
if a patch/update is a miss-fire, I can back it out completely in
about 4 minutes. Part of my standard client setup now is to have
Acronis True Image setup with a incremental personal backup
daily and a full system partition weekly. I advise customers to
burn image sets to CD/DVD on a minimum quarterly basis. I
also keep their delivered state system image in a company fire
proof safe, so they have a minimum off-site level of protection.
Along with AV defs, I also have few issues with AdAware or
Spybot. Defender I still keep on a short leash and monitor the
NG's for any issues with it. That being said I still do not setup
my own system or customers to receive Sun Java, Shockwave
or Adobe Reader updates automatically.

Problem with that is that some AV software companies (like
Norton!!!!!!!) also include software updates as well as definition
updates.
 
A

All Things Mopar

Today R. McCarty attempted to dazzle everyone with this
profound linguistic utterance
I wouldn't apply that logic to Anti-Virus definition
updates though.
Yes, I would. I have System Works 2006 (no comments, please) set
to "notify" as I do not want it also updating itself without
/me/ setting a RP first. Again, I reiterate, I would not
recommend /any/ auto-update scheme, just too many ways to invite
a visit from Murphy.
 
A

All Things Mopar

Today antioch attempted to dazzle everyone with this profound
linguistic utterance
Why not - what makes them more acceptable than any other
update. What makes them a more reliable type of
update/patch.?? I would like to read your reasons.
I even wait a day or two before I let antispy beta1 be
updated. I wouldn't dream of updating/upgrading it with
defender though. Rgds

Exacta-mundo, Antioch!
 
A

All Things Mopar

Today R. McCarty attempted to dazzle everyone with this
profound linguistic utterance
The reason for AV being excluded is what definitions do.
They don't change/alter the basic functionality of the
scanning engine. They (defs) are simply additional
signatures to catch the latest documented threats. One
reason, I'm not overly concerned with updates/patches is my
system is imaged almost weekly. So even if a patch/update
is a miss-fire, I can back it out completely in about 4
minutes. Part of my standard client setup now is to have
Acronis True Image setup with a incremental personal backup
daily and a full system partition weekly. I advise
customers to burn image sets to CD/DVD on a minimum
quarterly basis. I also keep their delivered state system
image in a company fire proof safe, so they have a minimum
off-site level of protection. Along with AV defs, I also
have few issues with AdAware or Spybot. Defender I still
keep on a short leash and monitor the NG's for any issues
with it. That being said I still do not setup my own system
or customers to receive Sun Java, Shockwave or Adobe Reader
updates automatically.

Depending on what AV software you have, it may or may not be
possible to limit its auto-update to defs only.

I can see why you might have TI running on autopilot, but what
will you do for/to your clients if /it/ destroys their system
through some glitch in the process of writing an image or
updating itself? Treble damages, bubbly.

The rest of your advice is very sound, and I fully subscribe
to it. But, the operative word is "manual", not "automatic". I
simply refuse to let software run my life. I have this rather
romantic view that a PC is a very sophisticated adding machine
whose sole purpose is to perform useful work for me - and not
a toy to play with or try to keep running.
 
A

All Things Mopar

Today steam3801 attempted to dazzle everyone with this
profound linguistic utterance
Problem with that is that some AV software companies (like
Norton!!!!!!!) also include software updates as well as
definition updates.

Yes, I just talked to this point about my Norton System Works
2006, which also has the nasty habit of turning Windoze updates
back to "auto" on me!
 
D

Doug Kanter

All Things Mopar said:
Today steam3801 attempted to dazzle everyone with this
profound linguistic utterance


Yes, I just talked to this point about my Norton System Works
2006, which also has the nasty habit of turning Windoze updates
back to "auto" on me!

That's a good reason to buy just an AV product, instead of the various
"suites" that sticks its nose into every function that nobody needs help
with.
 
D

Doug Kanter

Bruce Chambers said:
Was there a question there? (I'm sure that anyone interested in Mr.
Livingston's opinions would already have been subscribed to his
newsletter.)
Bruce Chambers


Bruce, this is like saying "I'm sure 100% of Mexicans crossing the border
are carrying illegal drugs". Without statistics, you are sure of nothing.
 
R

R. McCarty

Good Point - and I would agree a single AV is a better choice
than any of the current suites.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top