OSNews

What Microsoft should have done is to inform of this in WU. No part of a operating system should be self-updating without written notice of what parts gets self-updated, and why.

Also, from a security standpoint, i think this is bad.

WU is propriary. We dont know how it validates new self-updates. What if Microsoft WU servers get hacked, and millions of Windows machines starts to automaticlly download compromised code?

Edited 2007-09-14 14:34

Well for me it ain't a risk, since my firewall blocks Windows Update unless I specifically allow WU to contact the servers

Remember, the Windows Update servers do not contact your machine. It is your machine that contact the Windows Update servers.

If the servers are compromised people using automatic download/installation/notification are in (a rather hypothetical) risk. It's however only a matter of having a properly configured firewall - and not the built-in btw.

What happens if ANY update servers (including those hosted by debian, redhat, apple, etc) get hacked? A lot of people are screwed.

It is very easy to remedy. You simply have the updater update itself when you check for updates.

The updater informs the user about the need for the update every time a manual update check is attempted, they have to do it to use the current update system.

Simple. Very simple. No need to do anything automatically.

Of course, I think automatic updates ( auto-download-install ) is The Dumbest Idea Ever(R).

--The loon

But it can't check for updates without the updater update. In 3 of the 4 settings, the updater automatically checks for updates, which is when you say its ok for it to update itself.

The 4th setting, according to some people, doesn't automatically update the updater anyway.