Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

September 14, 200717 yr

JJ,

It's the closest I see to anything refering to updates of the system files -

the other parts of Section 7 (sounds like a mysterious quasi-governmental

agency??) refer to various specific internet enabled features. My point is

that nothing I can find in the EULA (I just read the whole darn thing) seems

to state MS reserves the right to arbitrarily modify an end user's system.

Would you want Ford to just walk into your garage and start tinkering with

your car?

Val

"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote in message

news:%23VCh%23Gn9HHA.2752@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

Val

This is referring to the part that updates drivers and does not apply to

other updates.

--

Jupiter Jones [MVP]

Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services

http://www3.telus.net/dandemar

"Val" <vmanes@NOSPAMrap.midco.net> wrote in message

news:KaydnZyMFoyYeXTbnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@midco.net...

>I don't read anything in the EULA portions quoted below that indicates MS

> has any right to install updates when one has explicitly opted out of

> them.

> Continuing on in section 7 the Vista EULA,

>

> . Windows Update Feature. You may connect new hardware to your device.

> Your device may not have the drivers needed to communicate with that

> hardware. If so, the update feature of the software can obtain the

> correct

> driver from Microsoft and install it on your device. You can switch off

> this update feature.

>

> As a consumer, I would expect that if I do "...switch off this update

> feature", I expect it to stay switched off. Period. No quibbling.

>

> It's my computer.

>

> Val

Quote

Mark as Solution

September 14, 200717 yr

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 17:46:39 -0700, Frank <fb@nospan.crm> wrote:

>Adam Albright wrote:

>

>>

>> Hey bub, trying to play attorney now? A EULA technically isn't a

>> contract

>

>You're the idiot! The EULA is an agreement...an agreement is a legally

>binding contract.

Explain to us how Microsoft KNOWS who clicked their mouse agreeing to

the EULA which is the ONLY so-called "proof" anyone agreed to the

terms of the license. Damn, Frank I know you're a real dim bulb, but

even you should see the fatal flaw in such half-ass reasoning and to

try to claim it becomes legally binding is laughable.

Worse, Microsoft doesn't provide any written version of the EULA in

the packaging Vista comes in and the only way you get to see it is if

you begin the install process THEN nobody that sold Vista to you will

take it back claiming it is "opened" software. Sounds like a catch 22

to me.

Of course you being nothing but a moronic fanboy you probably wait on

your porch every evening hoping you see a pig fly past. Lots of luck

with that.

Quote

Mark as Solution

September 14, 200717 yr

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 17:47:25 -0700, Frank <fb@nospan.crm> wrote:

>Noozer wrote:

>

>> In other words, they could detect that you have Alcohol 120% on your system

>> and shut you down.

>>

>Would that be like drunk driving! :-)

>Frank

You being a drunk would know.

Quote

Mark as Solution

September 14, 200717 yr

Paragraph 7 covers it.

As for "quasi-governmental agency", I don't see that at all.

Consult an attorney specializing in software licensing if a definitive

answer is needed.

It is highly anyone responding here qualifies.

"Would you want Ford to just walk into your garage..."

Not relevant since there is no agreement that permits Ford to do that in my

garage.

--

Jupiter Jones [MVP]

Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services

http://www3.telus.net/dandemar

"Val" <vmanes@NOSPAMrap.midco.net> wrote in message

news:ZZadnaajZ8AtdnTbnZ2dnUVZ_o-mnZ2d@midco.net...

> JJ,

>

> It's the closest I see to anything refering to updates of the system

> files -

> the other parts of Section 7 (sounds like a mysterious quasi-governmental

> agency??) refer to various specific internet enabled features. My point

> is

> that nothing I can find in the EULA (I just read the whole darn thing)

> seems

> to state MS reserves the right to arbitrarily modify an end user's system.

>

> Would you want Ford to just walk into your garage and start tinkering with

> your car?

>

> Val

Quote

Mark as Solution

September 14, 200717 yr

Tim Slattery <Slattery_T@bls.gov> wrote:

>Bruce Chambers <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote:

>> "Nobody?" What planet do you live on? I read every contract I'm asked

>>to sign. I seek legal advice for any portions I don't understand. Don't

>>you? Are you saying that the *everyone* is too stupid or too lazy to

>>look out for their own interests? And I though I had a dim view of the

>>general public.

>

>Do you read every single EULA you run into? Do you have time to do

>anything else?

And I guess he's recommending that anyone who doesn't understand each

and every word of the EULA should seek legal advice before purchasing

the software. Yeah, that'd work.

--

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

....Philip K. Dick

Quote

Mark as Solution

September 14, 200717 yr

"HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:

>I used to do that. I bought a gross of condoms once, but there were only 143

>in the box. When I complained to the pharmacist the next day, he gave me a

>free one along with the apology: "I'm sorry we spoiled your evening."

Did you explain to him that it only spoiled the first half hour?

--

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

....Philip K. Dick

Quote

Mark as Solution

September 14, 200717 yr

I read all EULAs and have terminated all permissions...when concerned about

email privacy I use PGP or Hushmail (which is free). I don't think any

corporation can be expected to stand on ethical mounts--not any more thus,

we must act in our own behalf. Downloads can be managed.

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message

news:tf2je35lrcqsegqbfgf5io93jvtc53fkna@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:34:11 -0600, Bruce Chambers

> <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote:

>

>>Adam Albright wrote:

>>> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 10:05:43 -0600, Bruce Chambers

>>> <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote:

>>>

>>>> Silicon neuron wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>> Microsoft has begun patching files on Windows XP and Vista without

>>>>> users'

>>>>> knowledge, even when the users have turned off auto-updates.

>>>

>>>> Actually, this is *not* being done _without_ user consent. Just the

>>>> opposite. Every user of each operating systems has been given advance

>>>> notice that such things could happen, and has consented to it.

>>>>

>>>> Read the Vista EULA. Section 7 makes it clear that this could happen:

>>>

>>> Yea sure, and I bet most people aren't aware that buried deep in the

>>> EULA Microsoft claims the right to your first born and anybody in

>>> Redmond above a certain rank can have sex with your wife or girl

>>> friend if a there's a fifth Saturday in any month. Better check your

>>> calendar. -)

>>>

>>

>> Sarcasm aside, I'm glad to see that for once you agree that the EULA

>>does so stipulate and that all users have given their consent. It's not

>>often you let facts get in the way of your rabid anti-Microsoft stance.

>

> Me anti Microsoft? Hardly as I've said many times I wouldn't be a

> stockholder in a company I don't like. I simply wish they would clean

> up their act. What I find fascinating is how fanboys automatically

> stick their heads in the sand and just ignore all the failings in

> Vista and the anti-customer stance Microsoft has had since say one.

>

> As far as any EULA, they are like the fine print on insurance polices.

> NOBODY reads them or for that matter could understand half the double

> talk contained there in.

>

Quote

Mark as Solution

September 14, 200717 yr

Adam Albright wrote:

>

> Explain to us how Microsoft KNOWS who clicked their mouse agreeing to

> the EULA which is the ONLY so-called "proof" anyone agreed to the

> terms of the license.

Uhhh...how about the owner of the computer the software is installed on?

Damn, Frank I know you're a real dim bulb, but

> even you should see the fatal flaw in such half-ass reasoning and to

> try to claim it becomes legally binding is laughable.

Try running that bs line by any Municipal, County, State or Federal

Court Judge.

>

> Worse, Microsoft doesn't provide any written version of the EULA in

> the packaging Vista comes in and the only way you get to see it is if

> you begin the install process THEN nobody that sold Vista to you will

> take it back claiming it is "opened" software. Sounds like a catch 22

> to me.

Tell that to the Judge!

>

> Of course you being nothing but a moronic fanboy you probably wait on

> your porch every evening hoping you see a pig fly past. Lots of luck

> with that.

For a supposed "genius, you're very good at doing stupid!

Frank

Quote

Mark as Solution

September 14, 200717 yr

"Frank" <fb@nospan.crm> wrote in message

news:OxJJ4im9HHA.4180@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Adam Albright wrote:

>

>>

>> Hey bub, trying to play attorney now? A EULA technically isn't a

>> contract

>

> You're the idiot! The EULA is an agreement...an agreement is a legally

> binding contract.

> How fukkin dumb are you mr genius?

> Frank

Your not in the UK then.. its probably not legal in the UK as its conditions

added after the sale which you can't do.

Quote

Mark as Solution

September 14, 200717 yr

dennis@home wrote:

>

> "Frank" <fb@nospan.crm> wrote in message

> news:OxJJ4im9HHA.4180@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>> Adam Albright wrote:

>>

>>>

>>> Hey bub, trying to play attorney now? A EULA technically isn't a

>>> contract

>>

>> You're the idiot! The EULA is an agreement...an agreement is a legally

>> binding contract.

>> How fukkin dumb are you mr genius?

>> Frank

>

> Your not in the UK then..

Fortunately for Europe and unfortunately for California, Frank lives in

Southern California, the center of scams, fraud and spam.

> its probably not legal in the UK as its

> conditions added after the sale which you can't do.

Now you've done it, you used logic and facts and Frank will do what he

always does: insult you and call you a liar. Thinking he's cute and

clever, he will throw in some blustering for good measure.

--

Alias

To email me, remove shoes

Quote

Mark as Solution

September 14, 200717 yr

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 11:58:24 +0200, Alias <iamalias@shoesgmail.com>

wrote:

>dennis@home wrote:

>>

>> "Frank" <fb@nospan.crm> wrote in message

>> news:OxJJ4im9HHA.4180@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>> Adam Albright wrote:

>>>

>>>>

>>>> Hey bub, trying to play attorney now? A EULA technically isn't a

>>>> contract

>>>

>>> You're the idiot! The EULA is an agreement...an agreement is a legally

>>> binding contract.

>>> How fukkin dumb are you mr genius?

>>> Frank

>>

>> Your not in the UK then..

>

>Fortunately for Europe and unfortunately for California, Frank lives in

>Southern California, the center of scams, fraud and spam.

>

>> its probably not legal in the UK as its

>> conditions added after the sale which you can't do.

>

>Now you've done it, you used logic and facts and Frank will do what he

>always does: insult you and call you a liar. Thinking he's cute and

>clever, he will throw in some blustering for good measure.

Yep, that's Frank. The louder he squeals the more moronic he sounds.

As far as California, they don't call it la-la land for nothing.

Define la-la land:

1. A place renowned for its frivolous activity.

2. A state of mind characterized by unrealistic expectations or a lack

of seriousness.

Where else could some aging actor named Arnold with absolute zero

political or leadership experience that announces his intentions on a

late night tv show who still speaks fractured English who's most

famous line is "I'll be back" be elected governor? Only in California.

Of course there is Texas, where some admitted drunk of a ex president

went AWOL from the National Guard who his daddy got him in to avoid

serving in Vietnam that with the help of his brother stole the Florida

election and became president. America, you got to love it. Never mind

the rest of world mostly laughs at our "leaders". <snicker>

Quote

Mark as Solution

September 14, 200717 yr

See this discussion: http://aumha.net/viewtopic.php?t=29171

--

~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)

MS MVP-Windows (IE, OE, Security, Shell/User) since 2002

AumHa VSOP & Admin http://aumha.net DTS-L http://dts-l.org/

Silicon neuron wrote:

> http://windowssecrets.com/comp/070913/#story1

>

> By Scott Dunn

>

> Microsoft has begun patching files on Windows XP and Vista without users'

> knowledge, even when the users have turned off auto-updates.

>

> Many companies require testing of patches before they are widely

> installed,

> and businesses in this situation are objecting to the stealth patching.

>

> Files changed with no notice to users

>

> In recent days, Windows Update (WU) started altering files on users'

> systems

> without displaying any dialog box to request permission. The only files

> that

> have been reportedly altered to date are nine small executables on XP and

> nine on Vista that are used by WU itself. Microsoft is patching these

> files

> silently, even if auto-updates have been disabled on a particular PC.

>

> It's surprising that these files can be changed without the user's

> knowledge. The Automatic Updates dialog box in the Control Panel can be

> set

> to prevent updates from being installed automatically. However, with

> Microsoft's latest stealth move, updates to the WU executables seem to be

> installed regardless of the settings - without notifying users.

>

> When users launch Windows Update, Microsoft's online service can check the

> version of its executables on the PC and update them if necessary. What's

> unusual is that people are reporting changes in these files although WU

> wasn't authorized to install anything.

>

> This isn't the first time Microsoft has pushed updates out to users who

> prefer to test and install their updates manually. Not long ago, another

> Windows component, svchost.exe, was causing problems with Windows Update,

> as

> last reported on June 21 in the Windows Secrets Newsletter. In that case,

> however, the Windows Update site notified users that updated software had

> to

> be installed before the patching process could proceed. This time, such a

> notice never appears.

>

> For users who elect not to have updates installed automatically, the issue

> of consent is crucial. Microsoft has apparently decided, however, that it

> doesn't need permission to patch Windows Updates files, even if you've set

> your preferences to require it.

>

> Microsoft provides no tech information - yet

>

> To make matters even stranger, a search on Microsoft's Web site reveals no

> information at all on the stealth updates. Let's say you wished to

> voluntarily download and install the new WU executable files when you

> were,

> for example, reinstalling a system. You'd be hard-pressed to find the

> updated files in order to download them. At this writing, you either get a

> stealth install or nothing.

>

> A few Web forums have already started to discuss the updated files, which

> bear the version number 7.0.6000.381. The only explanation found at

> Microsoft's site comes from a user identified as Dean-Dean on a Microsoft

> Communities forum. In reply to a question, he states:

>

> "Windows Update Software 7.0.6000.381 is an update to Windows Update

> itself.

> It is an update for both Windows XP and Windows Vista. Unless the update

> is

> installed, Windows Update won't work, at least in terms of searching for

> further updates. Normal use of Windows Update, in other words, is blocked

> until this update is installed."

>

> Windows Secrets contributing editor Susan Bradley contacted Microsoft

> Partner Support about the update and received this short reply:

>

> "7.0.6000.381 is a consumer only release that addresses some specific

> issues

> found after .374 was released. It will not be available via WSUS [Windows

> Server Update Services]. A standalone installer and the redist will be

> available soon, I will keep an eye on it and notify you when it is

> available."

>

> Unfortunately, this reply does not explain why the stealth patching began

> with so little information provided to customers. Nor does it provide any

> details on the "specific issues" that the update supposedly addresses.

>

> System logs confirm stealth installs

>

> In his forum post, Dean-Dean names several files that are changed on XP

> and

> Vista. The patching process updates several Windows\System32 executables

> (with the extensions .exe, .dll, and .cpl) to version 7.0.6000.381,

> according to the post.

>

> In Vista, the following files are updated:

>

> 1. wuapi.dll

> 2. wuapp.exe

> 3. wuauclt.exe

> 4. wuaueng.dll

> 5. wucltux.dll

> 6. wudriver.dll

> 7. wups.dll

> 8. wups2.dll

> 9. wuwebv.dll

>

> In XP, the following files are updated:

>

> 1. cdm.dll

> 2. wuapi.dll

> 3. wuauclt.exe

> 4. wuaucpl.cpl

> 5. wuaueng.dll

> 6. wucltui.dll

> 7. wups.dll

> 8. wups2.dll

> 9. wuweb.dll

>

> These files are by no means viruses, and Microsoft appears to have no

> malicious intent in patching them. However, writing files to a user's PC

> without notice (when auto-updating has been turned off) is behavior that's

> usually associated with hacker Web sites. The question being raised in

> discussion forums is, "Why is Microsoft operating in this way?"

>

> How to check which version your PC has

>

> If a system has been patched in the past few months, the nine executables

> in

> Windows\System32 will either show an earlier version number, 7.0.6000.374,

> or the stealth patch: 7.0.6000.381. (The version numbers can be seen by

> right-clicking a file and choosing Properties. In XP, click the Version

> tab

> and then select File Version. In Vista, click the Details tab.)

>

> In addition, PCs that received the update will have new executables in

> subfolders named 7.0.6000.381 under the following folders:

>

> c:\Windows\System32\SoftwareDistribution\Setup\ServiceStartup\wups.dll

> c:\Windows\System32\SoftwareDistribution\Setup\ServiceStartup\wups2.dll

>

> Users can also verify whether patching occurred by checking Windows' Event

> Log:

>

> Step 1. In XP, click Start, Run.

>

> Step 2. Type eventvwr.msc and press Enter.

>

> Step 3. In the tree pane on the left, select System.

>

> Step 4. The right pane displays events and several details about them.

> Event

> types such as "Installation" are labeled in the Category column. "Windows

> Update Agent" is the event typically listed in the Source column for

> system

> patches.

>

> On systems that were checked recently by Windows Secrets readers, the

> Event

> Log shows two installation events on Aug. 24. The files were

> stealth-updated

> in the early morning hours. (The time stamp will vary, of course, on

> machines that received the patch on other dates.)

>

> To investigate further, you can open the Event Log's properties for each

> event. Normally, when a Windows update event occurs, the properties dialog

> box shows an associated KB number, enabling you to find more information

> at

> Microsoft's Web site. Mysteriously, no KB number is given for the WU

> updates

> that began in August. The description merely reads, "Installation

> Successful: Windows successfully installed the following update: Automatic

> Updates."

>

> No need to roll back the updated files

>

> Again, it's important to note that there's nothing harmful about the

> updated

> files themselves. There are no reports of software conflicts and no reason

> to remove the files (which WU apparently needs in order to access the

> latest

> patches). The only concern is the mechanism Microsoft is using to perform

> its patching, and how this mechanism might be used by the software giant

> in

> the future.

>

> I'd like to thank reader Angus Scott-Fleming for his help in researching

> this topic. He recommends that advanced Windows users monitor changes to

> their systems' Registry settings via a free program by Olivier Lombart

> called Tiny Watcher. Scott-Fleming will receive a gift certificate for a

> book, CD, or DVD of his choice for sending in a comment we printed.

>

> I'll report further on this story when I'm able to find more information

> on

> the policies and techniques behind Windows Update's silent patches. Send

> me

> your tips on this subject via the Windows Secrets contact page.

>

> Scott Dunn is associate editor of the Windows Secrets Newsletter. He is

> also

> a contributing editor of PC World Magazine, where he has written a monthly

> column since 1992, and co-author of 101 Windows Tips & Tricks (Peachpit)

> with Jesse Berst and Charles Bermant.

Quote

Mark as Solution

September 14, 200717 yr

dennis@home wrote:

>

> "Frank" <fb@nospan.crm> wrote in message

> news:OxJJ4im9HHA.4180@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>

>> Adam Albright wrote:

>>

>>>

>>> Hey bub, trying to play attorney now? A EULA technically isn't a

>>> contract

>>

>> You're the idiot! The EULA is an agreement...an agreement is a legally

>> binding contract.

>> How fukkin dumb are you mr genius?

>> Frank

>

> Your not in the UK then.. its probably not legal in the UK as its

> conditions added after the sale which you can't do.

No, I live in SoCal.

I have no idea about the legalities of EULA's in the UK.

I don't even know if the EULA's are the same.

I don't know the legal ramifications of purchasing software in the USA

for use in the UK, or even if there are any.

I do know that until otherwise stated by the our US courts, all EULA's

from all software companies purchased and used in the USA, are legally

binding and are viewed as contracts.

Frank

Quote

Mark as Solution

September 14, 200717 yr

Alias wrote:

> dennis@home wrote:

>

>>

>> "Frank" <fb@nospan.crm> wrote in message

>> news:OxJJ4im9HHA.4180@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>

>>> Adam Albright wrote:

>>>

>>>>

>>>> Hey bub, trying to play attorney now? A EULA technically isn't a

>>>> contract

>>>

>>> You're the idiot! The EULA is an agreement...an agreement is a

>>> legally binding contract.

>>> How fukkin dumb are you mr genius?

>>> Frank

>>

>> Your not in the UK then..

>

> Fortunately for Europe and unfortunately for California, Frank lives in

> Southern California, the center of scams, fraud and spam.

Well, that's just another one of your stupid personal insults and

another outright lie from you.

>

>> its probably not legal in the UK as its conditions added after the

>> sale which you can't do.

>

> Now you've done it, you used logic and facts and Frank will do what he

> always does: insult you and call you a liar. Thinking he's cute and

> clever, he will throw in some blustering for good measure.

Try reading my answer to him you dimwitted moron liar.

Frank

Quote

Mark as Solution

September 14, 200717 yr

Val wrote:

> I don't read anything in the EULA portions quoted below that indicates MS

> has any right to install updates when one has explicitly opted out of them.

> Continuing on in section 7 the Vista EULA,

>

> . Windows Update Feature. You may connect new hardware to your device.

> Your device may not have the drivers needed to communicate with that

> hardware. If so, the update feature of the software can obtain the correct

> driver from Microsoft and install it on your device. You can switch off

> this update feature.

>

> As a consumer, I would expect that if I do "...switch off this update

> feature", I expect it to stay switched off. Period. No quibbling.

>

> It's my computer.

>

> Val

Hi Val. That was my point which Bruce so conveniently ignored in my

Sign In

Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent

Guest, which answer was the most helpful?

Featured Replies

Popular Days

Join the conversation

Popular Days

Account

Navigation

Search