Oh ! No ! Yet Another Microbloat Critical Update !

[DonnyEMU]

You guys are real geniuses, I like going to windows update or having the "you have new updates to install" icon pop up in my system tray. The security update thing is a good one. Imagine having a platform that you can't get an important update automatically online. It saves me time and money and I don't have to worry that some idiot has attacked my machine and in the least I have lost all of my work.

Windows update is good, I'd rather know about problems and have them give me a good fix than not and get caught with a virus or some malicious code..

SCORE 1 for Windows.. How do you call an update bloat ware when the updater that runs only downloads "exactly" the files you need for the update require and does it automatically for you..

For those of you who think there aren't plenty of bugs or reasons for having this in any other OS, maybe your OS doesn't have to do so much for so many..

[Oldsmobile_Mike]

lempkee wrote:

btw how big is windows now ? , it must be twice the size of what it was on its first release

A buddy of mine just got a new laptop with XP.  Upon unpacking it he installed his virus checker & ran it.  With nothing on the hard drive but XP and the virus checker, the check reported over 40,000 files!   :-P

[cecilia]

How do you call an update bloat ware when the updater that runs only downloads "exactly" the files you need for the update require and does it automatically for you..

you really think it's THAT easy - or safe?

the main reason i have no virus's or other issues with my windows2000 is because I use ZoneAlarm, Opera and have NEVER used Outlook and don't use IE.
And I don't install programs unless I really need them. so it's a fairly "clean" system.

but i'm paranoid, :-D

[mikeymike]

@ DonnyEMU

I think most people here realise that not everything is great about Windows, nor is everything about it bad.  There is no need for the endless advocacy.

[levelLORD]

@all

Hi!

I have a little problem here. This is all I get from that (M$) site...
---------------------------
Thank you for your interest in Windows Update
Windows Update is the online extension of Windows that helps you get the most out of your computer.
You need to be running a version of Internet Explorer 5 or higher in order to use Windows Update.
Download the latest version of Internet Explorer
Once Internet Explorer is installed, you can go to the Windows Update site by typing http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com into the address bar of Internet Explorer.
If you prefer to use a different Web browser, updates to Windows may be downloaded from the Microsoft Download Center.
----------------------
I'm running Opera and I don't have IE (I have erase it, also auto update). OK, a question, where is the exe file of the update on M$ site?

Thank you, I really appreciate this!!!


levelLORD

[mikeymike]

@ levelLORD

There is no "exe file for Windows Update", it's all done through ActiveX controls for IE.

Your only choice is to go to the MS security site, and download updates relevant to your OS and MS software that you run.

MS service packs are available at the subsites per MS OS, for example, http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/ has Win2k service packs.  From that site I think there are links to other MS OSs.

[levelLORD]

Thanks MikeyMike!

I found .exe file (patch for Blaster Worm), thanks to the link that you gave me, that I was looking for!!!

If someone is having similar problems like me, here is executable:

(URL edited by mikeymike to stop over-stretchy window :-))

This patch is for Win2K.

@MikeyMike

OK, Is that patch included with SP4 (I'm running Win2K) or not?

I'm really grateful for that link, thanks again!!!

levelLORD

[mikeymike]

@ levelLORD

OK, Is that patch included with SP4 (I'm running Win2K) or not?

Nope.  Some anti-DCOM stuff (such as allowing the user to properly disable DCOM see here (my site), which will now guard better against new DCOM vulns, has been included in SP4 however.

I'm running SP4, was running SP2, not noticed any problems.

[levelLORD]

Thanks again! Ok, I have W2K SP4, but was thinking that update is included w/SP4. Now I just learned, it is not. Thanks for pointing that!
Nice tips you have there, at your's site, didn't see them before, but I wasn't looking hard enough, I guess.

OK, take care

levelLORD

[Quixote]

;-) As MikeyMike mentioned, the update is all done remotely, by Microsoft.  This, then, is the reason that hackers can gain complete control of your machine remotely: Windows is designed to be controlled remotely.  Hackers have figured out how to usurp the built-in remote controls from Microsoft.

An OS that supports locking out the fellow in front of it has merit in an office environment where the company handles sensitive data and theft is a real concern.  However, the ability to lock out the end user is inappropriate in an operating system used in the home.

[mikeymike]

Here goes: my 1000th post :-)

@ Quixote

As MikeyMike mentioned, the update is all done remotely, by Microsoft.

No, I would say the work is about half and half between client and server.  When an IE user first goes to the WU site, they get prompted to install ActiveX controls for WU.  These do the detection work (registry hits to determine patched status, as well as OS identification).  This data gets sent back to the server and a page displayed showing what updates the user can/should install.  The local ActiveX control then handles the download/install process.

This, then, is the reason that hackers can gain complete control of your machine remotely: Windows is designed to be controlled remotely.

No, really, it isn't the reason :-)  and "those damn hackers" haven't managed to compromise the ActiveX controls used for Windows Update.  Yet.  Unless there is an extremely easy way to invoke them (which there isn't), a hacker would have to compromise a number of sections (including SSL certificate handling/storage) of the OS, and to do so would require elevation of privs to admin status.  Then why would they bother trying to compromise an ActiveX control if they already have full privs.  The WU controls provide no "remote control" capability.

Windows is not designed to be controlled remotely.  UNIX and its derivatives are operating systems designed to be controlled properly.  Windows has a number of bad implementations for remote control.

An OS that supports locking out the fellow in front of it has merit in an office environment where the company handles sensitive data and theft is a real concern. However, the ability to lock out the end user is inappropriate in an operating system used in the home.

I'm not sure how to reply to this, because I don't get where you're coming from with this comment.

[jeffimix]

Unix developed in an enviroment where you tried to minimize the amount of RAM as much as possible and so on. Windows grew in a much more spacious in enviroment, who the H*** could ever need 640KB of RAM? I say its bloat is due to a bad enviroment.

Amiga grew up with the expectation of first being a games machine (cheap) then made by commodore (kinda cheap).

[mikeymike]

Unix developed in an enviroment where you tried to minimize the amount of RAM as much as possible and so on. Windows grew in a much more spacious in enviroment, who the H*** could ever need 640KB of RAM? I say its bloat is due to a bad enviroment.

Hmm, I'd amend that slightly, to add that Windows did not start off in a "spacious environment", it made it spacious through its popularity and progressive bloatedness.  Windows is primarily responsible for the high spec machines available today.

[Viking]

Well, I updated my XP last week. I selected all the critical updates and it trashed almost the whole
system. I become totally unable to connect to the internet and almost every program disappeared
from the Add/remove program list.

I formattted the HD and tried again... same result. I formatted and installed everything once more and
deselected one of the updates (forgot what its name was, but that update was ment to help the system
repair itself...). This time it works - so far.

[mikeymike]

There's a patch that is capable of totally trashing your system and you forget what its name was?

[Viking]

The patch is Q817287, 332 kB. This patch is meant to help XP with recovering automatically in case of errors.

The nice little thing changed and/or deleted some dll(?) files.