Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
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\Ser viceStartup\wups.dll c:\Windows\System32\SoftwareDistribution\Setup\Ser viceStartup\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. |
Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
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: ================================================== ====================== 7. INTERNET-BASED SERVICES. Microsoft provides Internet-based services with the software. It may *change* or cancel them at any time. a. Consent for Internet-Based Services. The software features described below and in the Windows Vista Privacy Statement connect to Microsoft or service provider computer systems over the Internet. *In some cases, you will not receive a separate notice when they connect.* You may switch off these features or not use them. For more information about these features, see the Windows Vista Privacy Statement at http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=20615. By using these features, you consent to the transmission of this information. Microsoft does not use the information to identify or contact you. ================================================== ====================== (Emphasis mine) The WinXP EULA also made this clear: ================================================== ====================== Internet-Based Services Components. The SOFTWARE contains components that enable and facilitate the use of certain Internet-based services. You acknowledge and agree that MS, Microsoft Corporation or their subsidiaries may automatically check the version of the SOFTWARE and/or its components that you are utilizing and may provide upgrades or supplements to the SOFTWARE that may be *automatically* downloaded to your COMPUTER. ================================================== ====================== (Again, emphasis mine) Do I approve of this practice? Not really. I'd prefer to know about each and every change as it happens, just on the off chance that, if a problem occurs, I've better information on which to base my troubleshooting. But I'm an exception; most people simply don't want to know about technical details of how the OS is working. -- Bruce Chambers Help us help you: http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell |
Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 10:05:43 -0600, Bruce Chambers
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. ;-) |
Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
Adam Albright wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 10:05:43 -0600, Bruce Chambers 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. -- Bruce Chambers Help us help you: http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell |
Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
Atta boy Bruce!
"Bruce Chambers" wrote in message ... Adam Albright wrote: On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 10:05:43 -0600, Bruce Chambers 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. -- Bruce Chambers Help us help you: http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell |
Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:34:11 -0600, Bruce Chambers
wrote: Adam Albright wrote: On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 10:05:43 -0600, Bruce Chambers 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. |
Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
How Windows Update Keeps Itself Up-to-Date
http://blogs.technet.com/mu/archive/...p-to-date.aspx "Bruce Chambers" wrote in message ... | Adam Albright wrote: | On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 10:05:43 -0600, Bruce Chambers | 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. | | | -- | | Bruce Chambers | | Help us help you: | http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm | http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html | | They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary | safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin | | Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell |
Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
Adam Albright wrote:
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. "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. Regardless, the signer's not having bothered to read a contract doesn't make that contract any less binding. Oh, and the Windows EULA is written at what I'd consider an 8th grade (A 1960's era American public school 8th grade, that is; probably closer to today's high school level, now. Nevertheless the average McDonalds burger-flipper should have no trouble with it.) reading level. It's not at all confusing to the functionally literate. -- Bruce Chambers Help us help you: http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell |
Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
Bruce Chambers wrote:
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. "Giving consent" in this context is nebulous. None of us reads every EULA we see, we just click the "I agree" button. And for an operating system's EULA, most people aren't even aware that it exists. They open the box, setup their new computer, and turn it on. They click any buttons they need to to get through the setup. -- Tim Slattery MS MVP(DTS) http://members.cox.net/slatteryt |
Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
Bruce Chambers wrote:
Adam Albright wrote: 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. "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? -- Tim Slattery MS MVP(DTS) http://members.cox.net/slatteryt |
Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
An explanation of Windows Update automatic updating:
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/wi...c-updates.aspx The above Vista Team blog entry seems to be a little more transparent: QP This self-updating is done regardless of whether the user has enabled automatic checking, download and/or installation of updates. It does so in an effort to avoid WU misleading the user to think s/he is up-to-date simply because s/he was not receiving notification that updates are available. Put another way, WU cannot alert the user that there are security updates available if it is not in the necessary updated state that will allow it to recognize those updates... /QP -- ~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/ Tom [Pepper] Willett wrote: How Windows Update Keeps Itself Up-to-Date http://blogs.technet.com/mu/archive/...p-to-date.aspx "Bruce Chambers" wrote in message ... Adam Albright wrote: On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 10:05:43 -0600, Bruce Chambers 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. -- Bruce Chambers Help us help you: http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell |
Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
This is just the pratice run. Next time MS will also try disabling any systems it thinks is using pirated software!! Watch the space!!! 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\Ser viceStartup\wups.dll c:\Windows\System32\SoftwareDistribution\Setup\Ser viceStartup\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. |
Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
Tim,
I agree with you. I'm surprised MS hasn't put a printed copy of the EULA right with the software in such a way that in order to use the software the user would *have* to at least see there is a piece of paper there. Whether they choose to read it or not is for another thread. I honestly don't understand all the *itching about MS, and their products. If you don't like their products, policies, etc., go somewhere else. Nobody is forcing anyone to "buy" MS products or policies. And before anyone asks, I'm not "an *ss-kissing MVP" either! -- HTH, Curt Windows Support Center www.aumha.org Practically Nerded,... http://dundats.mvps.org/Index.htm "Tim Slattery" wrote in message ... | Bruce Chambers wrote: | | 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. | | "Giving consent" in this context is nebulous. None of us reads every | EULA we see, we just click the "I agree" button. | | And for an operating system's EULA, most people aren't even aware that | it exists. They open the box, setup their new computer, and turn it | on. They click any buttons they need to to get through the setup. | | -- | Tim Slattery | MS MVP(DTS) | | http://members.cox.net/slatteryt |
Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
My guess is reading every EULA with every word is the exception, but some do
it. I seldom read every word but I attempt to read what I think might be significant. However if I would hear of something that seems unusual, I would and have read more thoroughly to see if there was something I may have missed. In any case I can hardly blame something I was unaware when it was stated in a document I chose to partially read or not read. -- Jupiter Jones [MVP] Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services http://www3.telus.net/dandemar "Tim Slattery" wrote in message ... Do you read every single EULA you run into? Do you have time to do anything else? -- Tim Slattery MS MVP(DTS) http://members.cox.net/slatteryt |
Microsoft updates Windows without users' consent
The sky is falling!!
-- Curt Windows Support Center www.aumha.org Practically Nerded,... http://dundats.mvps.org/Index.htm "Kevin Brunt (Fat Baztard)" wrote in message ... | | This is just the pratice run. Next time MS will also try disabling any | systems it thinks is using pirated software!! Watch the space!!! |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:12 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2004 - 2006 PCbanter
Comments are property of their posters