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

Samsung disabling Windows Update?

bsodanalysis.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 149 posts

Re: Samsung disabling Windows Update?

#81

Post by pja »

This is about as end-user hostile as the Lenovo Superfish thing. By the sounds of things, Samsung has managed to ship some of their laptops with devices that fail with the standard windows devices drivers, but don’t have their own pci-id which would allow Samsung to ship a custom driver. Samsung’s solution to this is not to issue a hardware recall & replace the laptops, but to expose their customers’ private personal information to every future malware author on the planet.

In some ways, this is worse than Superfish. Superfish was at least not deliberate; it seems pretty clear that Lenovo really didn’t understand the full implications of what they were doing by installing it on their laptops. There’s no way that Samsung doesn’t understand that by disabling Windows Update they are trading off their customers’ security against the cost of a hardware recall.

(It wouldn’t surprise me to discover that Microsoft actually has ways of blacklisting driver updates under Windows Update & will liaise with OEMs to help them sort out problems like this - it wouldn’t be that hard to maintain a list of 'if the hardware looks like this then install that driver instead of the standard one'. In which case Samsung is simply trading off a bit of management time against their customers’ security which is even more unacceptable.)

Re: Samsung disabling Windows Update?

#83

Post by reacweb »

daemin wrote: post #62
geon wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the way OS X handles it. Unsigned software won't run by default, but the user can override the limitation.

Yes, you can do this on Windows too, but the problem is this update disabler executable was signed, so it would have run anyway.

There are two problems: how on earth samsung may have the idea to produce this kind of software and who is signing software without giving a look at what he is signing. A problem of software development mentality (on windows) and a problem of responsability.

Re: Samsung disabling Windows Update?

#84

Post by Qantourisc »

jriordan wrote: post #17

Microsoft owns Windows. Licenses it to OEMs. If Microsoft didn't have a problem with OEM's disabling Windows Update, then then would have prohibited it in their license agreement.

There is also the possiblity nobody considered this to be a problem ... ever ...

Re: Samsung disabling Windows Update?

#85

Post by stinos »

crdoconnor wrote: post #29
UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #3

If this is true (and frankly I know for a fact it is, as I just downloaded the linked file containing Disable_Windowsupdate.exe, which is signed by Samsung Electronics CO and downloaded from Samsung's own servers) then Microsoft should pick up the phone and threaten the heck out of Samsung, Microsoft while somewhat neutered by anti-trust still has a great deal of power over OEMs and stuff like this is a perfect time…

Honestly, as a Linux user this kind of makes me chuckle. Microsoft has spent so much time abusing their market dominance, trying to cripple linux on the desktop that it's kind of funny for once to see a company which they can't strong-arm doing the same thing back to them.

trying to cripple linux on the desktop

according to what I hear year after year again ('still not the year of desktop linux') they even succeeded. lol.

Re: Samsung disabling Windows Update?

#87

Post by reacweb »

embik wrote: post #63
electic wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let the past be the past. The new MS is making some good moves. However, this is not MS's fault. When you operate in an OEM type environment, you will run into situations like this. For example, if OSX was an OEM offering, companies would disable services and make unsavory modifications. The reality, is like Lenovo, we have a bad vendor here and probably think twice before buying PCs from Samsung.

Honestly, it's hard to embrace the "new MS" when there are things like this still happening: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/22/microsoft-... I'm aware that Microsoft is a giant corporation and there are many different people employed. The amount of people who support Open Source most likely increased in the last years. But as long as they're doing the public "we love Linux and Open Source" and try to…

I do not like microsoft because I think it has slow down the progress of computer science (MHO). In this case microsoft has done nothing wrong. It has given Samsung the right to sign executable because people would hate if microsoft was the only one able to sign executables. In his case, samsung is the only culprit.

I think microsoft has make many good moves recently because the public interest and its business interest are converging. Microsoft is in a hard fight to avoid becoming irrelevant. It has to lobby governments for commercial interests and at the same time, it has to seduce developpers by open sourcing (and leading technical innovation).

Re: Samsung disabling Windows Update?

#88

Post by bad_user »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #67
bad_user wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, so because Windows has been historically shitty creating this problem in the first place, we now willingly want Trusted Computing and thus losing control and ownership of our own devices, with the grandma reason given as rationale. Well, when this relationship with the likes of Apple and Microsoft goes toxic, and it's only a matter of time, I'll be one of those that will enjoy it, as I'll consider it a sort of…

Instead of this sanctimonious sermon, we would be better served attempting to solve the problem that locked-down platforms do, but in a more open way. Because the fact remains - computers have been a difficult thing for many people to use and maintain reliably. The "Windows has been historically shitty" point might be a reason this problem has been worse than it needed to, but it's hardly a compelling excuse. When pe…

So I'm all for solving current problems, however if I'm sure of anything, I'm sure that companies like Microsoft or Apple won't deliver a solution that solves these problems without locking-in users into a trap which is worse than the problem that it's solving.

And on Windows, this is the oldest trick in the book - in order to sell something people don't want, you first need to create the demand for it.

Re: Samsung disabling Windows Update?

#89

Post by tallanvor »

reacweb wrote: post #83
daemin wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you can do this on Windows too, but the problem is this update disabler executable was signed, so it would have run anyway.

There are two problems: how on earth samsung may have the idea to produce this kind of software and who is signing software without giving a look at what he is signing. A problem of software development mentality (on windows) and a problem of responsability.

Samsung signed the software, of course. Who else would?

Re: Samsung disabling Windows Update?

#90

Post by zamalek »

tantalor wrote: post #18
UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #3

If this is true (and frankly I know for a fact it is, as I just downloaded the linked file containing Disable_Windowsupdate.exe, which is signed by Samsung Electronics CO and downloaded from Samsung's own servers) then Microsoft should pick up the phone and threaten the heck out of Samsung, Microsoft while somewhat neutered by anti-trust still has a great deal of power over OEMs and stuff like this is a perfect time…

Yet, Microsoft is responsible for allowing such software to run in the background with no notification or authorization by the user or means to disable it.

> means to disable it.

1. Right click on the taskbar.

2. Click "Startup".

3. Disable what you want.

4. Click "Services"

5. Disable what you want.

This omits "Scheduled Tasks" (cron jobs) which can be set to execute on user logon. This is the single one that Microsoft still need to address.

Does whichever operating system you are comparing to Windows have a one-top-shop for the vast majority of startup configuration? Of the "big 4" (Mac, Linux, BSD, Windows) as far as I know this is a unique feature.

Proof-of-point: I have a copy of Linux, without telling you what the distro is, tell me how to disable the firewall (just an example of background software on most Linux distros).

> no notification or authorization

Does that operating system of yours do this? Which of the "big 4" do? I know that Linux and BSD don't.

> Microsoft is responsible for allowing such software to run in the background

So Microsoft is responsible for everything every Microsoft-stack developer on earth does? Does that mean that RMS is responsible for closed source software because some of it is made with GCC?

Post reply on HN