RSS
Microsoft Thinking Of Forcing Updates On Users
from the maybe-the-good-worm-is-from-them... dept
With all the stories going around now about the "good" worm that supposedly is fixing the security hole that led to the MSBlaster worm, it appears Microsoft is wondering if they can do that themselves. One of the strategies for dealing with future problems like this one is to force update their operating systems. That is, as part of using Windows, you'll have to agree to let them come in and change the operating system whenever necessary. In the past, users have made it clear they had no interest in having Microsoft muck around with their machines without their permission. However, with the number of security holes (and with broadband, always-on connections becoming more widespread) apparently some consumers are coming around to the idea.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
What about all the //@r3z version of Windows?
Take the MSDN version of Server 2003 - a known leaked registration that Windows update won't touch. How is MS going to address this?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
what to do?
I'm not going to question the "quality" of M$ software, but I think the main reason for this and many other problems faced with Windows machines stems directly from the System Admin's having very little actual knowledge of their systems (all they do is run the various wizards M$ conveniently makes available). Whereas most Linux/Unix admins are at a much higher level and actually understand the workings of their systems and the internet at large.
I personally admin a large network of windows servers, and have not been affected by any of these virus attacks over the years (codered, nimda, and so on...) Why? simply because i keep my systems locked down and keep them up to date as soon as patches/updates are made available (and ofcourse tested before released to the mission critical machines)
So what should M$ do? the majority of their system admins are bordering on the "stupid" side (no offence to you admins out there) they make their system so "easy" to use which is the main reason, and then they get a lot of bashing because their systems aren't updated, so naturally (being the kind of company that M$ is) they would consider this Forced Update approach
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
did MS write Blaster?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: did MS write Blaster?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: what to do?
In an ideal situation, a sysadmin would be soley responsible for maintaining the health and security of their systems. Unfortunately, given the job environment and shrinking IT budgets, quite a few are like me, expected to perform the duties of several people (or departments), without the necessary resources. Case in point: I am currently tasked with doing disaster recovery tests for our core systems, while at the same time being responsible for updating all the servers and workstations where I am employed.
MLO
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: what to do?
The thing with a lot of windows "sites", they don't NEED their own inhouse system admins - and hence DON'T have them.
They end up relying on outside consultants, and no matter what you do, a lot of "management" types see the bottom line and will opt NOT to have patches installed on their servers or network - rather stupid but that's the way a lot of management are.
Then you have users with laptops that are rarely in the office and are too lazy to do their windows updates.
Forcing updates is not a good thing - i've had MS patches pork things in the past, and i would hate to think of the extra grief i'd have if all of my clients were patched with a bad microsoft patch all at once.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Beginning of the end
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: what to do?
"Forcing updates is not a good thing - i've had MS patches pork things in the past, and i would hate to think of the extra grief i'd have if all of my clients were patched with a bad microsoft patch all at once."
Nonsense. Forced updates are a great idea.
Just think how much it will help decrease IT sector unemployment...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Microsoft Forced updates
Time to try another computer.. Maybe a MAC or something.. I hear they dont crash or force you to do things you dont want.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
Hehe, I did see the price of NortonAV2003 drop to like $20 in a lot of stores this weekend!
On another note, why don't all broadband ISP's supply firewalls with their service - instead of just a cablemodem or DSL modem, can't they supply a Linksys router or even a copy of ZoneAlarm or something?
I have several levels of protection including a Linux firewall, encryption etc. and almost died the other day when a friend of mine said he directly connects his XP box to his cablemodem!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
Because if they supplied it - they would have to support it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
auto update worm
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment