Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Don't tell people to turn off Windows Update

troyhunt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 567 posts

Re: Don't tell people to turn off Windows Update

#351

Post by vetinari »

yorwba wrote: post #82
noja wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I love the way he's compared the people who tell you to turn off auto-updates with anti-vaxxers; it's quite an apt analogy. This is a good analogy, but does it work in different circumstances? (Apologies for the derail) Over on Android , the apps have got so big (and the storage was until recently so small) that automatic updates _cannot_ be installed - the new apps are too big, the phone is full. What do we do the…

In my case, buy a large SD card to put the apps on, then find out that only the primary storage can hold apps. I think this limitation has been lifted in more recent Android versions, but - of course - I can't upgrade. Moving all my photos and ebook .pdfs off did alleviate the burden somewhat, but hasn't completely solved it. My current workaround for very large apps is to uninstall, redownload, install. Apparently,…

Sony has fairly unique system: Install an app, move it to the SD card, the update will install it back to internal memory. You have to move it again, manually. And again, and again, after each update.

Or just leave them all on the internal system, until a system utility wakes up to the fact that there is not enough space, and suggest moving apps to the sdcard. After few rounds of updates, rinse and repeat.

Re: Don't tell people to turn off Windows Update

#352

Post by kijin »

noxToken wrote: post #269
simias wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not my point. Enabling Windows Update shouldn't be a trade-off. The fact that disabling it constitutes a quality-of-life improvement for many demonstrates that Microsoft is doing something terribly wrong. I should be able to tell my friends "yes, you should turn on auto updates, there's absolutely no reason not to" without having to follow with any caveats like "oh well, it can upgrade your OS, reboot on you w…

Not that MS is completely without fault, but we have to remember that they're supporting an infinite amount of configurations. Apple's OSX (on the other hand) is supposed to support a limit configuration controlled by Apple. It's a recipe for disaster.

Supporting an infinite number of configurations has nothing to do with installing arbitrary apps that you never wanted, automatically changing your default apps and wallpaper, and silently turning back on various spying "features" that you had intentionally turned off.

Re: Don't tell people to turn off Windows Update

#354

Post by yuhong »

As a side note, the delay to release PDB symbols on MS's symbol server after a Patch Tuesday has been at least days and sometimes more than a week for the last two months (at least for the Win10 symbols I tried). I use them a lot with WinDbg.

Re: Don't tell people to turn off Windows Update

#355

Post by rsync »

CydeWeys wrote: post #4

I love the way he's compared the people who tell you to turn off auto-updates with anti-vaxxers; it's quite an apt analogy. Microsoft shares part of the blame here for pushing features that the user clearly doesn't want through updates (especially to the major OS version). Look at the recent ads in Windows file explorer for one example. A lot of the advice to turn Windows Update off is a misguided response to Microso…

"I still sort of regret installing Windows 10 to this day because of the obnoxious Cortana bar it foisted upon my start menu that I can't get rid of. And yet not installing Windows 10 would've left me less secure with an OS hitting EOL for security updates much sooner."

Running an MS OS has been a one-way ticket to owned for roughly 18 years now.[1]

You are fragile to these things because you choose to be - not because this is a necessary condition of participating on computer networks.

This ransomware attack was based on an SMB vuln. One of the stuxnet vectors was an autorun vuln.[2] Would you wake the fuck up and see that it is 2017 and you're getting owned by SMB and autorun vulns ?

[1] Melissa virus was 1999, BO2k was 2000.

[2] Has any single file caused more mayhem in the world than autorun.inf ? The net negative effect of autorun.inf on the world must be in the tens of billions of dollars by now.

Re: Don't tell people to turn off Windows Update

#356

Post by novaleaf »

sangnoir wrote: post #68
CydeWeys wrote: post #4

I love the way he's compared the people who tell you to turn off auto-updates with anti-vaxxers; it's quite an apt analogy. Microsoft shares part of the blame here for pushing features that the user clearly doesn't want through updates (especially to the major OS version). Look at the recent ads in Windows file explorer for one example. A lot of the advice to turn Windows Update off is a misguided response to Microso…

> Microsoft shares part of the blame here for pushing features that the user clearly doesn't want through updates (especially to the major OS version). Look at the recent ads in Windows file explorer for one example. A lot of the advice to turn Windows Update off is a misguided response to Microsoft's own bone-headed moves in recent years to install bullshit that the user doesn't want. Vaccinations are awesome, but M…

I don't think this is the reason why most people (non tech savvy) look to turning off Windows Update.

Most people don't know/care about Windows Update pushing features.

However most people DO care when their computers spontaneously reboot themselves with no warning (sometimes even in the middle of "active hours"!) which is what msft has set by default (and indeed has/had no UI to modify in some versions of Win10)

Re: Don't tell people to turn off Windows Update

#357

Post by maturz »

Silhouette wrote: post #167
masklinn wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Its insane there is no ability to only update manually. There is.

An officially supported channel that will let you select important security updates to install if and when you want to and not push anything else? Without relying on enterprise management features and the like? That would be interesting news to a lot of people, I'm sure, so please share what you know.

Disable updates then you can use http://www.windowsupdatesdownloader.com/

Re: Don't tell people to turn off Windows Update

#358

Post by a_imho »

freehunter wrote: post #329
Qwertious wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The basic problem of our world is that it is ruled by 20-sometings that loath working on "old" tech. The epitome of this is the FOSS world that goes through a wrenching rewrite churn every 5 years or so as new heads take over "old" projects." Disagree thoroughly. The reason why people push shit through the security-updates channel is because of money and structural pressure from management to ensure adoption of the…

It's funny that I see the general sentiment over Windows 10 to be the opposite of Python 3. "Everyone" is mad Microsoft pushed Windows 10 too hard, meanwhile "everyone" is trying to get people to adopt Python 3 and wondering why it took big name libraries so long to convert. It's a big problem in tech, trying to get people to update. We might like to think of ourselves as progressive, but a lot of people in our world…

The only way to ensure people are using the latest version is to stop giving them a choice. You can't always rely on people making the best choice for themselves.

Agree with the first part, the second needs a very twisted definition of best or themselves.

Offer something people want and they will upgrade. This alone tells very much about the win10 situation. Microsoft game is lock-in, if the cost of leaving their garden is trivial they are doing something wrong!

Re: Don't tell people to turn off Windows Update

#359

Post by vetinari »

mseebach wrote: post #55
Asooka wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't feel it's quite an apt analogy, since anti-vaxxers have fully imaginary fears of adverse consequences (vaccines causing autism), while people who disable windows update do it after suffering real adverse consequences of forced updates. A good firewall would protect from WanaCrypt and everything else distributed via opening SMB ports on random IPs over the internet (correct me if I'm wrong), so you should be s…

> A good firewall would protect from WanaCrypt No, unfortunately not - it spread using SMB internally on LANs, but travelled internet-to-LAN by "regular" phishing. It downloads its payload off the internet, but most good firewall would allow that (was the WannaCry payload detectable by virus scanners at the time of the infection? A "good" firewall might be one expected to intercept and scan all downloads). > A legiti…

On medical devices, where the PC is a terminal or controller for the rest, like RTG or CT machines, you don't get Windows shell and launch the app. You boot the computer, it will boot straight to the control app and the app actively prevents switching to something different. You can only use this controller app on the machine.

The folks at hospitals are not going to fight with such an expensive machine, not even for updates - if something goes wrong, they would be to blame, they can live without that.

Re: Don't tell people to turn off Windows Update

#360

Post by cartoonfoxes »

setq wrote: post #164
UK-AL wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would assume the large majority of windows users doing batch stuff over night are businesses. At that point you should probably be using windows server + wsus. Which give you a lot more control over updates.

I agree with the person above your comment. For example some simulation loads are common to run on deskside systems. However this IS definitely an edge case and it is possible to turn it off. I have run a physical host as a build agent that has uptime of months on Windows 10. This is administrative competence, not a problem with the product or the use case. WSUS + Windows server is definitely fine for most workloads…

> and it is possible to turn it off

I have this dreadful feeling that Microsoft is A/B testing this stuff, making sure that there is just enough inconsistency between sites to sow doubt and confusion.

Post reply on HN