Linked by Eugenia Loli on Thu 12th Jan 2006 07:36 UTC, submitted by Resolution
Bugs & Viruses Users of Windows who have set the Automatic Updates option to "Download updates for me, but let me choose when to install them" were surprised to find that the latest WMF patch had overridden these settings and not only installed the patch, but rebooted the machines as well.
Order by: Score:
No automatic reboot here
by Marcellus on Thu 12th Jan 2006 07:48 UTC
Marcellus
Member since:
2005-08-26

Same settings, no automatic reboot here.
In fact, I had to wait several days before I found an opportunity to actually reboot.

Windows 2000 Pro SP4 and Windows XP Pro SP2 tried.

I'm guessing that these cases are due to obscurities in the configurations of the affected systems, and not any widespread problem.

Reply Score: 5

RE: No automatic reboot here
by Karitku on Thu 12th Jan 2006 08:26 UTC in reply to "No automatic reboot here"
Karitku Member since:
2006-01-12

Yes, same here. All this news is based on internet rumors that are in my opionion usually pure crap.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: No automatic reboot here
by Celerate on Fri 13th Jan 2006 00:57 UTC in reply to "RE: No automatic reboot here"
Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

I believe it happened here on one computer that didn't have the first wmf update installed when the other was released. I was told by a family member who's claim was that her computer did more or less what was reported in the article. I don't know how valid this claim is since the person is honest but also computer illiterate, but since I heard of it before this article was out, and now there is an article about it, I'm inclined to give the article the benifit of the doubt.

Just because it didn't happen to you doesn't mean it couldn't have happened to someone else.

Reply Score: 1

Hmm...
by dylansmrjones on Thu 12th Jan 2006 08:01 UTC
dylansmrjones
Member since:
2005-10-02

My system did not update automatically.

But then, my system is set to only notify me and nothing more than that.

Reply Score: 1

ooooooooooh
by raver31 on Thu 12th Jan 2006 08:12 UTC
raver31
Member since:
2005-07-06

nasty nasty nasty

Microsoft should not have done this... if indeed it is true.

forcing an install and a reboot. how much lost data will that incur.

but then, read your EULA, Microsoft is in no way ever responsible for a loss in data if you use its systems.

Reply Score: 2

RE: ooooooooooh
by dylansmrjones on Thu 12th Jan 2006 08:26 UTC in reply to "ooooooooooh"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Actually, that's a part of any software. No matter if it's proprietary or FLOSS.

The only difference is you have to pay huge amounts for the right to experience data loss with Windows.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: ooooooooooh
by rcsteiner on Thu 12th Jan 2006 16:48 UTC in reply to "RE: ooooooooooh"
rcsteiner Member since:
2005-07-12

Some custom software specifically includes coverage for things like data loss due to software failure ... but you end up paying quite a bit for it. :-)

Reply Score: 1

RE: ooooooooooh
by Resolution on Thu 12th Jan 2006 08:34 UTC in reply to "ooooooooooh"
Resolution Member since:
2005-11-14

but then, read your EULA, Microsoft is in no way ever responsible for a loss in data if you use its systems.

What about if Microsoft was the one who caused the data loss without the user's knowledge or consent? These aren't normal circumstances, and I would be very appreciative if someone were to point out the specific line(s) in the EULA that give Microsoft the right to remotely override your system settings and reboot your machine while it is unattended, which may or may not have resulted in the loss of data.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: ooooooooooh
by Lamego on Thu 12th Jan 2006 08:49 UTC in reply to "RE: ooooooooooh"
Lamego Member since:
2006-01-12

How did you verify that microsoft changed any setting on your system?
The majority of the posts from people complaining about the reboots shows they never understood their settings.
They always had this policy configured, they realized this particular reboot just because of the media attention around this patch.

Please note that I don't like MS policies at all, but with so much REAL problens from it we could avoid ghosts hunting.

Edited 2006-01-12 08:50

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: ooooooooooh
by morgoth on Thu 12th Jan 2006 23:20 UTC in reply to "RE: ooooooooooh"
morgoth Member since:
2005-07-08

Well, since I'd say that most EULAs are legally enforceable...any judge would have to rule in favour of the complainant in such a situation...but then, given the Sony fracas, and the inability of any government body to take Sony to task for their illegal activities, I don't hold much hope of the ordinary average user's rights being protected by the system. The system now exists to protect the large and rich corporations, not the ordinary people like you and me.

Dave

Reply Score: 2

RE: ooooooooooh
by TaterSalad on Thu 12th Jan 2006 18:54 UTC in reply to "ooooooooooh"
TaterSalad Member since:
2005-07-06

This isn't strictly a Microsoft thing. Other companies and even independent developers of OSS have something similiar. I've seen it many times in the licenses where it will state "use at your own risk" or "Company is not responsible for any data loss, malfunctions, or harm caused by use of this software" or as simple as "the developer claims no responsibility".

Reply Score: 1

Anti MS Paranoia
by Lamego on Thu 12th Jan 2006 08:30 UTC
Lamego
Member since:
2006-01-12

Ths is just the usual Anti MS Paranoia .
Some research revealed this is an usual policy for non administrative users, however this can also be changed on the registry:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINESoftwareMicrosoftWindowsWindowsupdateAUNoAutoRebootW ithLoggedOnUsers" = 1

Edited 2006-01-12 08:31

Reply Score: 5

RE: Anti MS Paranoia
by cayfer on Thu 12th Jan 2006 10:54 UTC in reply to "Anti MS Paranoia"
cayfer Member since:
2006-01-04

Non-administrative users applying patces? Weird! What
does the admin do then? Ohhh. I see.. he/she is enjoying
the privilege of rebooting the system manually!

Furhermore, if you go deep enough into the registry, or
even deep into the code, you can change ANY option; and
even can remove vulnerabilities!

I cannot understand why an admin should have an
equivalent of a PhD degree in undocumented registry
features. We, UNIXers do such things in human readable
AND documented config files. (See OpSYS-101 notes/text books).

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Anti MS Paranoia
by Lamego on Thu 12th Jan 2006 12:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Anti MS Paranoia"
Lamego Member since:
2006-01-12

Uh ?
The patches are not applied by non-administrative users, the patches are installed by the windows update software when non-administrative users are logged on, however this was an administrator decision (wether the admin understood it or not).
If you are system administrator (even just for your home pc) and you are using an update option that you do not understand read something about it. This is valid for both linux and windows admins.

This entire topic just demonstrates how much windows users/admins don't care much about the details of their system until they get something they don't expect.
If there is a feature/option which they were not aware of, its MS overriding their decisions... what a joke.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Anti MS Paranoia
by Sphinx on Thu 12th Jan 2006 17:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Anti MS Paranoia"
Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

I don't get it either, blind obedience and lack of experience with a decent OS is my only guess. The idea that the registry system is in any way better than the old ini files completely baffled me.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Anti MS Paranoia
by mlb2000 on Thu 12th Jan 2006 18:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Anti MS Paranoia"
mlb2000 Member since:
2005-09-07

Yeah - like sendmail.cf ;)

One config file, four O'Reilly guides, one topping 1200+ pages!

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Anti MS Paranoia
by Celerate on Fri 13th Jan 2006 01:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Anti MS Paranoia"
Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

Like someone is really going to read all four books, or for that matter even one. Sysadmins for companies maybe, because it's their job to know every feature, but all the people I know who use programs like sendmail simply read one man page and then experiment a little to get the application working. It's not that hard.

Bad example too frankly, since Linux has no shortage of graphical e-mail clients that works very well. Another shortcomming with your argument is that you probably picked a fairly complicated configuration file, although never having used sendmail I really don't know how involved that is. Consider that the /etc/fstab configuration file is very straightforward and after spending a few minutes reading a man page I made changes to it that worked perfectly my very first time even opening the file.

Frankly whether you like configuration files or not is a matter of personal taste, I preffer well designed configuration applications, but I also preffer that settings be saved in configuration files than that they be saved in a regestry.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Anti MS Paranoia
by mlb2000 on Fri 13th Jan 2006 19:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Anti MS Paranoia"
mlb2000 Member since:
2005-09-07

...Another shortcomming with your argument is that you probably picked a fairly complicated configuration file, although never having used sendmail I really don't know how involved that is...

Erm, my posting was tounge in cheek and anyone who has had to learn sendmail.cf would be able to relate to it.

Yours is, by your own admission, utterly uninformed. Worse, it got voted up...

Reply Score: 0

RE: Anti MS Paranoia
by morgoth on Thu 12th Jan 2006 23:18 UTC in reply to "Anti MS Paranoia"
morgoth Member since:
2005-07-08

Yeah, great, and how's the average user meant to know that? mmm?

Dave

Reply Score: 1

Maybe...
by Jarsto on Thu 12th Jan 2006 08:59 UTC
Jarsto
Member since:
2005-10-06

they used the WMF exploit to install the patch without delay.

Seriously, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't do this on purpose, but the fact that it can apparently happen by accident makes me glad I'm on Linux these days. The fact that users are (probably) given a warning when it happens does little to comfort me. I'm away from the keyboard (and the monitor) at least 50% of the time that my computer's switched on. I try not to leave anything unsaved for too long as a general rule, but it still happens regularly.

If I got a nice warning box saying "Your system will reboot in a minute, please save any unsaved data" there's a 50% I wouldn't be there to see it, and a 50% chance that there would be unsaved data. Which means a 25% chance of (some) data being lost. Not a chance I particularly want to face.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Maybe...
by Tom K on Thu 12th Jan 2006 09:09 UTC in reply to "Maybe..."
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

Except it's all rumours.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Maybe...
by Dark_Knight on Thu 12th Jan 2006 17:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Maybe..."
Dark_Knight Member since:
2005-07-10

Re: "Except it's all rumours."

What made you come to that conclusion? Did you even read the article which listed several reports from various users that their systems rebooted on their own after forcing the patch to be installed?

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Maybe...
by Tom K on Thu 12th Jan 2006 14:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Maybe..."
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah, then I read many more comments stating the opposite.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Maybe...
by markjensen on Thu 12th Jan 2006 20:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Maybe..."
markjensen Member since:
2005-07-26

So, some people claim that it does reboot.
While most others claim it did not for them.

Your conclusion: Those 'reboot' people are liars or idiots that don't know what is going on???

It would be much more reasonable to say that this is possible under certain circumstances, rather than just assume it isn't.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Maybe...
by Tom K on Thu 12th Jan 2006 22:55 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Maybe..."
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

It would be much more reasonable to say this MIGHT be happening under a few rare circumstances, not the outright "Microsoft Installs Patch Without Permission" headline that makes it seem like a 100%-of-the-time occurance.

Knowing how badly f***ed up some people's Windows boxes are, I wouldn't be surprised if this is doing things to them that it shouldn't.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Maybe...
by Celerate on Fri 13th Jan 2006 01:16 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Maybe..."
Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

Although I wasn't there to witness it myself, a family member complained to me that this happened to her computer. There was a dialogue to postpone the reboot, which was on a countdown, but she decided to get it over with and was around so nothing was lost. The whole thing was described in good detail, I have no doubt that the dialog was going to shut the computer down automatically when the timer expired.

I'd take that family member's word over anyone who thinks that because it didn't happen to them it must be impossible, especially when those people are obvious Windows apologists.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Maybe...
by archiesteel on Thu 12th Jan 2006 23:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Maybe..."
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Yeah, then I read many more comments stating the opposite.

You really didn't bother to count, didn't you? See, that's what happens when you're biased: you only count the resutls that reinforce your preconceived notions.

Only in this comments section, there were seven (7) people who said this didn't happen to them while they had the same settings (or didn't specifically say they didn't have the same settings), while there are 12 comments that say that this DID happen to them (most of them mentioning that they did have the same settings). So an informal survey of this comments section (which you yourself indicated as a valid source to form an opinion) shows that the problem is quite prevalent.

But then again, some people will go out of their way to defend Microsoft, not matter what...

Reply Score: 2

quality testing
by evert on Thu 12th Jan 2006 09:04 UTC
evert
Member since:
2005-07-06

i suppose that's why the delay for quality testing was needed?

i rest my point...

Reply Score: 1

Matter of Mentality
by rayiner on Thu 12th Jan 2006 09:07 UTC
rayiner
Member since:
2005-07-06

Security isn't about fancy security systems, as Microsoft seems to think it is. It's about simple, predictable, and transparent software. This is the key flaw in Window's design, and its not something you fix with code. It's an institutional problem, rooted in the mentality of the programmers. It's a question of dependability. Does anyone here trust Windows Update? I know I don't, not since a bad network patch hosed my Windows network at home. If the user cannot trust the system, then any pretense of security is illusory. The game is over before it even begins.

Reply Score: 5

Time for a In Soviet Russia joke?
by AHuxley on Thu 12th Jan 2006 09:18 UTC
AHuxley
Member since:
2005-07-06

Google news has a few reports.

In Soviet Russia you lose your mind as KGB computer reboots you.

In America you lose your data as remotely patched computer reboots for you.

Reply Score: 1

No News
by Guido Draheim on Thu 12th Jan 2006 09:57 UTC
Guido Draheim
Member since:
2006-01-12

I have seen this before - after having ignored the "new patches available" for a few days it did greet me one morning with a message "patches installed, now rebooting". Personally, I was not surprised at all - for one it deems to be considerable measures to me and second it matches my opinions about microsoft and their mode of conduct with their beloved costumers. Damn it, they know you guys - who else would using a normal win xp box for an internet server machine.

Reply Score: 1

If it's true..
by ankitmalik on Thu 12th Jan 2006 10:10 UTC
ankitmalik
Member since:
2005-07-06

From Wikipedia, the definition of Spyware

"n computing, the term Spyware covers a broad category of malicious software designed to intercept or take partial control of a computer's operation without the informed consent of that machine's owner or legitimate user "
..........
"Gaining unauthorized access to a computer is illegal, under computer crime laws such as the United States Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Since the owners of computers infected with spyware generally claim that they never authorized the installation, a prima facie reading would suggest that the promulgation of spyware would count as a criminal act."

Reply Score: 3

RE: If it's true..
by Celerate on Fri 13th Jan 2006 01:23 UTC in reply to "If it's true.."
Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

Ok, a few things to point out here:
(1): Microsoft can afford much better and many more lawyers than you can.
(2): Microsoft engineered their EULA to keep themselves safe from the consiquences of stuff like this.
(3): The Microsoft patch as is understood by the general public, was not malicious but rather an important update.

I do not condone what Microsoft did, but at the same time I don't think you'll see them loosing in court over it during your lifetime.

Reply Score: 2

Re: Rumor
by shardservant on Thu 12th Jan 2006 10:11 UTC
shardservant
Member since:
2006-01-12

Good morning,

I am sorry to say that this is not a rumor.

Started downloading some ISO images and went to bed.

In the morning, I found the PC rebooted due to the patch install.

Not amused

Reply Score: 5

RE: Re: Rumor
by mmebane on Thu 12th Jan 2006 13:25 UTC in reply to "Re: Rumor"
mmebane Member since:
2005-07-06

Did it to me too. I have Windows set to tell me when updates are available. It told me of the WMF update, I ignored it for a few hours, then it installed it without permission. Every 15 minutes or so it would pop up a box telling me it would reboot in 5 minutes unless I clicked cancel. After doing that a few times, I put the laptop to in standby, and came back a few hours later to find that Windows had apparantly woken it up, rebooted, and gone back to sleep.

Finally, when I woke it up and logged in, it told me that there had been an important security updated that required these drastic measures.

Look, MS, I'm a smart user, I'm behind a NAT, AND I run a software firewall. I've let my desktop go unpatched for months without getting hacked. When I say I don't what updates being done behind my back, I mean it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Re: Rumor
by Celerate on Fri 13th Jan 2006 01:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Re: Rumor"
Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

I have NEVER heard of the OS pulling a laptop or any computer out of standby, if Windows did anything it would have to have been before or after, and it's possible that it was just subtle enough for you not to notice.

When a computer is in standby there shouldn't be any OS code still running in the processor. I'd say there is none at all but that'd be a gamble since I'm not entirely sure.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Re: Rumor
by mmebane on Thu 12th Jan 2006 13:26 UTC in reply to "Re: Rumor"
mmebane Member since:
2005-07-06

Did it to me too. I have Windows set to tell me when updates are available. It told me of the WMF update, I ignored it for a few hours, then it installed it without permission. Every 15 minutes or so it would pop up a box telling me it would reboot in 5 minutes unless I clicked cancel. After doing that a few times, I put the laptop to in standby, and came back a few hours later to find that Windows had apparantly woken it up, rebooted, and gone back to sleep.

Finally, when I woke it up and logged in, it told me that there had been an important security updated that required these drastic measures.

Look, MS, I'm a smart user, I'm behind a NAT, AND I run a software firewall. I've let my desktop go unpatched for months without getting hacked. When I say I don't what updates being done behind my back, I mean it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Re: Rumor
by mmebane on Thu 12th Jan 2006 13:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Re: Rumor"
mmebane Member since:
2005-07-06

Now that's bizzarre. I've never had a double-post happen to me here before.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Re: Rumor
by morglum666 on Thu 12th Jan 2006 15:00 UTC in reply to "Re: Rumor"
morglum666 Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes.. I had this happen as well. Was not happy.

1) "Would you like to restart or delay ?"
- Clicked delay

3-5 mins or so passes.

2) "Would you like to restart or delay ?"
- Clicked delay

3) "Would you like to restart or delay ?"
- Clicked delay

5 minutes later, while I was still in a game, it boots me out and reboots. nice huh?

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Re: Rumor
by Aussie_Bear on Thu 12th Jan 2006 15:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Re: Rumor"
Aussie_Bear Member since:
2006-01-12

That's terrible.

There should be like a message saying, something like:

"A very critical security patch has been installed on
your system. You will need to restart your system for
this patch to take effect. Please save your work first,
and then click OK."

(How hard is it to write a dialog like that? It takes
you less than 5 minutes)

There shouldn't be any of this automatic restart
nonsense.

The point of software is to still have the user
controling the system. You do not trust a system
that does things by itself when you tell it not to
do things...Its a fundamental thing.

Reply Score: 4

This is Terrible,
by AmigaRobbo on Thu 12th Jan 2006 10:35 UTC
AmigaRobbo
Member since:
2005-11-15

If it's true.

Reply Score: 0

the only way
by happycamper on Thu 12th Jan 2006 10:57 UTC
happycamper
Member since:
2006-01-01

Good. if that is the only way systems will get patched.
it's better then having the user whining why his computer is infected. Good job MS.

Reply Score: 3

So that's what happened
by thavith_osn on Thu 12th Jan 2006 11:09 UTC
thavith_osn
Member since:
2005-07-11

The other night my machine rebooted in the middle of the night. I had left the speakers on, so when it rebooted and logged in I got the starting up sound (nice and loud (must have slept through the shutting down sound ;-)).

I was worried there was something wrong with my machine, and it might do it again one day, so in a way am glad to hear it's MS's fault, but still, not happy that MS did this. I hope it's just a one off bug/oops thing :-)

Reply Score: 2

-
by WZot on Thu 12th Jan 2006 11:46 UTC
WZot
Member since:
2005-07-06

Happened to me aswell, on my Windows 2003 Server, but didnt really think about it untill you people mentioned it here. Luckily I didnt have any apps or anything else open so I didnt lose any data.

Reply Score: 2

It asked me
by NelsonN on Thu 12th Jan 2006 12:02 UTC
NelsonN
Member since:
2005-12-20

All my computers (4 of them) alerted me to the automatic download of the patch and then asked me to install. I find this odd that some were done automatically and others not.

Reply Score: 1

Fine here...
by Pr3st00 on Thu 12th Jan 2006 12:44 UTC
Pr3st00
Member since:
2005-12-02

At least for me it worked exactly as expected: windows warned me about new updates, I clicked the icon, software got installed...

But if it is really true even for a percentage of windows users, it's nonsense. Why provide a option if it can be override by MS?

Reply Score: 1

Hmmm
by Jezza on Thu 12th Jan 2006 13:12 UTC
Jezza
Member since:
2005-10-13

I don't know where I stand on this. I'm normally quite anti-MS, but I'm not a *nix zealot. I can see that this is the only way a LOT of PCs will get patched, the average windows user knows nothing about WindowsUpdate, and the settings are purely defaults. There are others that have tried to avoid SP2 and disabled WU, the only way everyone's going to be rid of this problem is if MS take the initiative and force the update.

If they'd not forced an update, we'd not be writing here about how MS forced us to reboot our machines :o We'd be posting about how awful it was that they were leaving lay-people vulnerable, by not ensuring they install the update.

Reply Score: 1

Not a rumour
by eivind on Thu 12th Jan 2006 13:38 UTC
eivind
Member since:
2005-11-09

It happened to me. My [computer] have these settings and it rebooted. I even had several programs running. And although their settings were not lost, it was annoying having to restart all of them again.

Edited 2006-01-12 13:39

Reply Score: 2

more of the same
by null_pointer_us on Thu 12th Jan 2006 13:42 UTC
null_pointer_us
Member since:
2005-08-19

I had the same thing happen some weeks ago on my PVR running XP and SageTV. I went to use the PVR one day and was surprised to see a dialog box telling me that my system had been automatically rebooted. Nothing was lost, but still, what if there had been a show I had really wanted to see?

Reply Score: 2

this patch could have royally screwed my co
by nicc on Thu 12th Jan 2006 13:42 UTC
nicc
Member since:
2006-01-12

I'm in IT at a large distributor and all of our Windows 2003 servers are set to automatically download patches, but to let *me* install them. this is a 24/7 business. we have machines that HAVE to be running flawlessly at all times of the day. I install available patches at certain times of the day when I know it wont affect users/data.

came in this morning to see our RAS, exchange, file and home folder servers were sitting at login prompts. walked into the warehouse and talked to the night managers who were getting ready to go home. they told me that all of a sudden a meassage appearred on their screens during production asking them if they wanted to reboot now due to a update. thankfully they clicked no, otherwise we would have lost thousands of $$ worth of time/labor in production costs.

Reply Score: 5

Dark_Knight Member since:
2005-07-10

Nicc,

I understand your concern and frustration. The enterprise sector is more affected by this issue than home users due to some businesses can be financially affected both with downtime not planned and data loss. Forcing an update to be installed which reboots systems with out the end users permission is not acceptable. Microsoft should be held accountable for not ensuring this wouldn't happen. This is one of the differences between Windows and Linux systems where on Linux systems providing auto-update such as "SUSE Watcher" for SUSE Linux in most cases doesn't require a reboot. This in turn means providing less downtime while ensuring the system is up to date. The exception typically being only when a kernel or graphics driver is updated is when it's preferred to reboot on Linux.

Reply Score: 3

ickus Member since:
2005-08-16

Sounds like you need SUS service.

Reply Score: 0

it is true
by kejar31 on Thu 12th Jan 2006 13:44 UTC
kejar31
Member since:
2006-01-08

I have seen this twice now. both time it happened in the middle of someone using the computer. after using the computer the user would just get a pop up telling them they needed to reboot now. they had the option to reboot later and selected that but the message would just come back in 5 min. After about 3 time they just rebooted. If the the user had not told the machine to reboot it would have rebooted on its own.

Reply Score: 1

I too have a possessed machine...
by mica on Thu 12th Jan 2006 14:01 UTC
mica
Member since:
2006-01-12

I have two machines, one work station and a test machine, with the same settings as far as automatic update is concerned. As I was working a 'balloon of hate' appeared asking me to download the WMF update; which I did and then went over and did same on the test machine and then set both off to install while I went on working. My workstation kept asking me if I wanted to restart as expected. To which I kept telling it to bugger off as I was busy.
Anyway to cut a long story short when I went back to my test machine that I had been ignoring, to restart it in fact and found it had already done it it's self.

The only major difference between the two is that the test machine runs a checked build of the kernel. (only the kernel though)

I however thought nothing of this at the time!

Reply Score: 1

v typical anti-MS hype
by rockwell on Thu 12th Jan 2006 14:59 UTC
v RE: typical anti-MS hype
by Googlesaurus on Thu 12th Jan 2006 16:34 UTC in reply to "typical anti-MS hype"
RE[2]: typical anti-MS hype
by ankitmalik on Thu 12th Jan 2006 16:54 UTC in reply to "RE: typical anti-MS hype"
ankitmalik Member since:
2005-07-06

You wouldn't want a Windows security flaw patched if someone miles away decided when to reboot your computer!

One right [providing the patch] + One wrong [forceful implementation + forced reboot] doesn't make one right!

Reply Score: 2

RE: typical anti-MS hype
by markjensen on Thu 12th Jan 2006 20:18 UTC in reply to "typical anti-MS hype"
markjensen Member since:
2005-07-26

Plus ... why the hell *WOULDN'T* you want this security flaw patched?

It's not about not wanting it patched. It is about choosing the time to reboot to finalize the patch.

Reply Score: 2

RE: typical anti-MS hype
by archiesteel on Thu 12th Jan 2006 22:56 UTC in reply to "typical anti-MS hype"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

So because it didn't happen to you it's only happened "a few times"?

Seems that only by reading the comments on this board it's happened quite a few times.

And the point is not that one wouldn't want the security flaw patched, but rather that some people may want to decide WHEN it's patched...

Reply Score: 1

Not Effected
by marshmanthe1st on Thu 12th Jan 2006 15:18 UTC
marshmanthe1st
Member since:
2005-12-31

Didn't reboot my 3 systems...

Reply Score: 1

The last Straw
by viator on Thu 12th Jan 2006 15:34 UTC
viator
Member since:
2005-10-11

I cant believe people are advocating for someone else to have total control of their pc. I dont want ms or anyone but ME controlling how MY pc behaves. This smells alot like the beginning of "trusted" computing.
Where the pc controls what YOU can do not the other way around. This was the last straw for me ;) I removed windows from my kids computer which was used for games.
Ill use gnu/linux and osx only from now on.

Reply Score: 2

aaaw...
by helf on Thu 12th Jan 2006 15:38 UTC
helf
Member since:
2005-07-06

poor people ;) Their computers rid themselves of a bad vulnerability and rebooted.. *cries*

Browser: OmniWeb/2.7-beta-3 OWF/1.0

Reply Score: 1

RE: aaaw...
by ArKay on Thu 12th Jan 2006 16:04 UTC in reply to "aaaw..."
ArKay Member since:
2005-07-13

That's very thoughtless. It shouldn't reboot WITHOUT PERMISSION, since the computer might be unattended and doing something important which has to finish.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: aaaw...
by Celerate on Fri 13th Jan 2006 01:34 UTC in reply to "RE: aaaw..."
Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

I wonder if commercial servers did the same thing, that could be very bad if they weren't intended to simply be rebooted spontaneously like that. Companies do build in redundancy and backup systems, but that doesn't eliminate the possibility of data loss when a machine goes down.

It might be possible to block the built in Windows update feature with a firewall rule though, and then just open up the firewall when you want to check. Given this I'd certainly consider it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: aaaw...
by ankitmalik on Thu 12th Jan 2006 16:47 UTC in reply to "aaaw..."
ankitmalik Member since:
2005-07-06

"poor people ;) Their computers rid themselves of a bad vulnerability and rebooted.. *cries* "

no! I think you are changing the topic... the patch is not the problem at all, it is a solution to a problem. but no matter how serious a problem [unless its something to do with aliens ;) ] - it still doesn't give someone sitting in Redmond a right to reboot anyone's PC without EXPLICIT Permission!

of course this has only happened in a few PCs [mountain out of molehill situation] but I am commenting generally that this situation shouldn't happen!

I once saw a video against the Trusted Computing Project and it ended with something like this ... '.. in the process of establishing trust, *they* decided not to trust you !! ' [not the exact words, but somewhat similar]

Ironic!

Reply Score: 2

RE: aaaw...
by Riddic on Thu 12th Jan 2006 23:02 UTC in reply to "aaaw..."
Riddic Member since:
2005-10-05

poor people ;) Their computers rid themselves of a bad vulnerability and rebooted.. *cries*

If I were an admin running a W2k3 production server system, I would VERY WELL want the system to ask me before it reboots!!
Ever seen a large, complex DB system come down hard? Sure, usually you can recover nicely, but it's extra work you just don't need.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: aaaw...
by raver31 on Fri 13th Jan 2006 06:39 UTC in reply to "RE: aaaw..."
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

No, people like him, (and other sheep around here who blindly defend Microsoft, NO MATTER WHAT), would not have seen a DB come down.
In fact they would never have seen a mission critical app, as the only experience they have of "computing" is playing games and running Microsoft Office.

Reply Score: 1

Settings
by DrillSgt on Thu 12th Jan 2006 15:55 UTC
DrillSgt
Member since:
2005-12-02

The easiest way to fix this is to not use that option. Personally I never let anything get downloaded to any machines I admin unless I tell it to download it. The best setting for this is the one below the one in question, which is to "Notify me but don't automatically download or install them." No problems here with any machines. I agree this may be an issue for those with the settings in the article, but nothing new as this happened to me awhile back with other updates, so I switched to the next option down. From an administrative view anyway, all patching should be done manually at all times, and NEVER left to a 3rd party, which in this case is Microsoft. Though my Linux machines have the same options running Suse, as I can set it for a fully automatic update, but then I effectively lose control over what software is installed on the machine. Just IMHO of course.

Edited 2006-01-12 15:57

Reply Score: 2

RE: Settings
by Googlesaurus on Thu 12th Jan 2006 16:50 UTC in reply to "Settings"
Googlesaurus Member since:
2005-10-19

"The easiest way to fix this is to not use that option. Personally I never let anything get downloaded to any machines I admin unless I tell it to download it."

Common sense is a very powerful thing.

I'm still laughing at the so called "admin" who claimed his server rebooted as a result of this.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Settings
by raver31 on Fri 13th Jan 2006 06:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Settings"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

I am still laughing at people like you, who blindly defend Microsoft no matter what wrong-doings they do.

What's next ?

Next weeks patch against WMF, (and there probably will be one), will auto-install on your PC, reboot the PC without your consent, send a listing of all the files in My Documents. Then every week report back to Microsoft telling which files were added/changed/deleted.

BUT

people like you will say " Microsoft fixed my PC, they are the greatest, why can linux not do this" etc etc etc

same old story from the same old sheep.

Reply Score: 1

That's rude...
by ArKay on Thu 12th Jan 2006 16:01 UTC
ArKay
Member since:
2005-07-13

I was wondering why my machine had rebooted for no apparent reason last week after getting out of bed, I couldn't find ANY explanation. It seemed to have rebooted at ~11pm and I noticed it at 7am the next day, scanned the event viewer logs and found nothing, now it's obvious what did this.

So my machine was running for 8h without doing anything because the software it had been running before the reboot of course wasn't running anymore. I saw something about an update but didn't make anything out of it since I believed I knew it wouldn't install anything without my permission.

Seems like it's time to turn automatic updates _OFF_.

Reply Score: 1

Questionable source...
by EmmEff on Thu 12th Jan 2006 16:23 UTC
EmmEff
Member since:
2005-09-16

Who are these people making this claim?

No automatic update and no reboot on the 4-5 machines I use daily.

Just because it's on the Internet, it doesn't mean it's true.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Questionable source...
by Sphinx on Thu 12th Jan 2006 17:33 UTC in reply to "Questionable source..."
Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

Yours must be broken.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Questionable source...
by shardservant on Thu 12th Jan 2006 17:51 UTC in reply to "Questionable source..."
shardservant Member since:
2006-01-12

Actually, it is true.

If you are curious about my credentials, go to my web site at http://www.townisp.com/~arobert

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Questionable source...
by Celerate on Fri 13th Jan 2006 01:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Questionable source..."
Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

I can confirm that it's true, it happened to one of our machines.

I'm getting frustrated at how many people are ignorant enough to think that just because it didn't happen to them means it must not have happened at all.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Questionable source...
by tomcat on Fri 13th Jan 2006 02:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Questionable source..."
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

I can confirm that it's true, it happened to one of our machines.

Unfortunately, there's no way to corroborate what you're saying. I tried it. WU asked me whether I wanted to install and reboot. No repro. Frankly, I have no way of knowing whether (1) you're lying, (2) you're incompetent (meaning that WU is set to automatically update and you don't realize it), or (3) you're telling the truth.

I'm getting frustrated at how many people are ignorant enough to think that just because it didn't happen to them means it must not have happened at all.

Unless it can be proven with reproducible results, a lot of people are going to conclude that you're just a FOSS axe grinder.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Questionable source...
by raver31 on Fri 13th Jan 2006 06:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Questionable source..."
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm getting frustrated at how many people are ignorant enough to think that just because it didn't happen to them means it must not have happened at all.

Me too, but then, this proves the theory of "sheep mentality", and gives another example of why the blindly defend Microsoft.

Reply Score: 2

how much ?
by gavrochelegnou on Thu 12th Jan 2006 16:35 UTC
gavrochelegnou
Member since:
2006-01-12

I wonder how much a "wmf" search on google has grown on results during the last few weeks ....

---------
GavrocheLeGnou
http://palabre.gavroche.net

Reply Score: 1

uh
by gplCop318 on Thu 12th Jan 2006 16:59 UTC
gplCop318
Member since:
2006-01-10

you mean people actually leave the windows update service running... YECH!!! deserve what ya got then! ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: uh
by Termal on Thu 12th Jan 2006 18:05 UTC in reply to "uh"
Termal Member since:
2006-01-04

I kinda agree--I have auto updates turned off too. I just visit the Windows Update site once a month on or around patch Tuesday, and if there's a critical out of cycle patch I'll have heard about it. But if you're administering more than a few computers it's a hassle, and for people who pay less attention to such things it's easier to just let auto update do it's thing.

Reply Score: 1

RE: uh
by Celerate on Fri 13th Jan 2006 01:40 UTC in reply to "uh"
Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

It's a default, some of us don't spend enough time with Windows to notice.

Reply Score: 1

Typical
by Windows Sucks on Thu 12th Jan 2006 17:23 UTC
Windows Sucks
Member since:
2005-11-10

Wow at this point you can't go two days with out some new MS problem!

First the WHM problem.
Then the Sober Worm. (again!)
Then someone(Not MS)having to make a temp patch.
Then a version of the MS patch leaking.
Then more WHM holes
And now this.

Good lord! LOL!

When will people learn. Why is it that MS supporters as always blame the admin or the user when the so called features says it will only download the files! Yet on my Mac or my Linux or Unix or ANY other OS machine I would not have to worry about that!

When is MS gonna get off the reboot after something is installed process anyway! Thought you didn't have to do that on MS installs??

MAYBE they will fix that on Vista??

Anyway, lets see if we can make it through the rest of the week without another crazy MS story.

Reply Score: 4

Happened to me
by Damien on Thu 12th Jan 2006 18:03 UTC
Damien
Member since:
2005-07-07

This happened on my home system: Windows XP Home SP 2, automatic update is set to download but not install files. The WMF patch decided to reboot the PC anyway. I had left the PC on overnight with no visible applications running (lots of background ones though), if that makes a difference?

Reply Score: 1

Next up
by Unbeliever on Thu 12th Jan 2006 18:44 UTC
Unbeliever
Member since:
2005-07-09

Upgrade to Vista without either consent or permission! Oh, and, you have to pay them for upgrading your OS. If you don't, they'll reboot it just when you're trying to save that 300 page novel you've been writing in Word.

Reply Score: 0

Amazing
by microshag on Thu 12th Jan 2006 19:32 UTC
microshag
Member since:
2005-11-30

How people come out to defend Microsoft so fanatically as if the company had never done anything wrong, as if they couldn't possibly do anything wrong. You'd think we haven't been discussing Microsoft's tactics for years.

Guess what? Just cause it didn't happen to you doesn't mean it didn't happen to anyone else, and since you probably haven't seen the Windows source code, you can't fully know what's going on in there anyway. Stop feeling sorry for MS already.

Reply Score: 3

Didn't reboot my system
by TaterSalad on Thu 12th Jan 2006 19:32 UTC
TaterSalad
Member since:
2005-07-06

I have my settings to notify me when updates are available, then I download and install them. This is a slightly different configuration than the one mentioned but it did not automatically reboot my system. I had to double click the shield then install the updates.

Reply Score: 1

...
by suryad on Thu 12th Jan 2006 20:09 UTC
suryad
Member since:
2005-07-09

Didnt happen to me. I always disable the automatic updates. Common sense. I decide what gets put on my computer. I decide if I will patch my computer. Not MS. So I go once a month on patch tuesday to MS update service and get my machine up to date. Not really hard. And not something one forgets to do.However I do see MS's reasoning behind this as crappy as it may be in reality. MS wanted to get this flaw fixed especially since it has been around since Windows 3.0!!! But maybe MS should have had a check...if the system processor is not being used or the hard drives are not spinning with I/O or the NIC card is not being used...or other scenarios then reboot. Something nicer than people getting their data fubared.

Reply Score: 1

Don't know any better.
by Windows Sucks on Thu 12th Jan 2006 20:20 UTC
Windows Sucks
Member since:
2005-11-10

The average user would not know any better, and now that in XP SP2 they computer screams at you if you don't have it turned on, what do you exspect!

Big ole company that is more worried about their image being tarnished again then they are about their customers!

Crazy!

Reply Score: 0

user error
by SlackerJack on Thu 12th Jan 2006 22:31 UTC
SlackerJack
Member since:
2005-11-12

I guess the so called experienced Windows users will call it user error, thats a bold statement saying Windows is sooooo easy to use. Microsoft really has got the keys to your front door, they just let themself in when ever they wish.

Nothing ever changes.

Reply Score: 1

re:awww
by helf on Thu 12th Jan 2006 22:48 UTC
helf
Member since:
2005-07-06

for the uninitiated (or just dim) , that post was 'sarcasm'....

Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 95; PalmSource; Blazer 3.0) 16;160x160

Reply Score: 1

The worrying aspect...
by morgoth on Thu 12th Jan 2006 23:25 UTC
morgoth
Member since:
2005-07-08

The worrying aspect to me is that it seems to be happening, but it's not a consistent issue. This sort of tells me that there's problems with either the way that windows update works, or the way that the patch is delivered and installed, or core problems with the operating system, or a combination of them!

I'm glad I don't use Microsoft Windows!

Dave

Reply Score: 1

Ironically...
by archiesteel on Thu 12th Jan 2006 23:29 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

I have to stop now because the work computer is telling me it will reboot in 3 minutes 45 seconds to apply a security patch...

Ah, if only we used Linux at work! :-P

Reply Score: 1

PlatformAgnostic
Member since:
2006-01-02

I bet this is because they rushed this patch out the door and they were understaffed due to the holidays. People were probably camping in the microsoft offices getting the test matrix run and some Program Manager on too little sleep made a bad decision. If you have a true high-uptime Windows System, it has to be clustered (that's basically the way Microsoft expects you to maintain high-availability), so this shouldn't hit those people.

This definitely seems like it has happened and is pretty bad.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Questionable source...
by archiesteel on Fri 13th Jan 2006 06:26 UTC
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

It happened to a dozen posters here. Are you saying they're all lying?

Perhaps you should extend some of that skepticism towards Microsoft, once in a while...

Reply Score: 2

Somebody who knows...
by AmigaRobbo on Fri 13th Jan 2006 09:31 UTC
AmigaRobbo
Member since:
2005-11-15

Can you tell me this, was it really necessary to reboot the system to install the fix anyway?

I've not turned on my (Windows) PC in 3 weeks, so I've not been playing much attention to this secruity flaw.

Reply Score: 1

I hate it...
by markw on Fri 13th Jan 2006 21:33 UTC
markw
Member since:
2005-07-09

I Literally hate it when MS reboots my computer. I regularly have applications opened that I wan't to stay opened and not have to go through the pain of opening them again.

Reply Score: 1

Spank my ass and call me Charlie
by Wrawrat on Sat 14th Jan 2006 07:49 UTC
Wrawrat
Member since:
2005-06-30

I was going to say that it didn't affected me, but I just checked out my laptop and got the surprise that the Automatic Update client downloaded the patch! It did not installed it, but I had set up the updater to notify me for updates, not to download them. Furthermore, I cannot shut down the machine without installing the patch!

Looks like I'm going to disable the feature. I need Windows XP, but I don't need downtime. Quite ironic that I have enabled this feature just a month ago for trying it... Usually, it's turned off.

Reply Score: 1