Seems the worst fears are realized, & people can download malware with full permissions via Windows Update.
http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/Windows-Update-compromised-1612246.html
Well I think you're mad to not keep your Windows updated.
Obviously you didn't read that site thoroughly
There's not much danger of being infected with malicious code via Windows Update if you're in Europe or the US
It was more a specific code for a specific event.
This is (yet another) irresponsible thread
to encourage others to just let windows go stagnant just because you feel your computer is invulnerable is stupid and mean
windows updates are what keep us with secure code and to point at one event and decry the whole thing
"My house burned down as a kid, this is why I don't live in houses"
Com'on Son
While i disagree with SuperFast about not doing Windows Updates, from a historical point of view, he has a point.
Back in the 98 days (yes, some of us are that old), you had a more than average chance that an update would cause more harm than good.
It was not uncommon to simply turn the feature off.
I believe keeping your PC update to date with the latest fixex, patches and improvements is important but on the flip side, i can see the school of thought "if it ain't broke don't fix it".
But for those who don't do Windows Update - can I put this arguement to you? What else don't you update?
I bet you still update CCleaner or Defraggler for example ! and you certainly update your AV.
I'm always curious as to why we(humans) do one thing but not another and the logic behind our reasoning.
but it is broke! that what the hotfixes are, very very rarely are "Important updates" added features, they are almost always fixes for security or fixes for parts of windows that do not work correctly.
"But I don't use {Insert Microsofte extra product such as IE or Windows Media player"
Doesn't matter, they are on your device they are exploitable (and that is true for ANY software not just Microsoft's
Do you not update Firefox from insecure 16.0 to securer 16.0.1? because "hey firefox works, I can easily go to GMAIL"
and, by the way, by you not updating your (generic you) computer it makes my (generic me) computer more likely to be hit by a drive by. You are more likely to be a botnet host, more likely to have an issue, that it is unclear if you would have it if you had the most updated windows fixes installed.
Well I think you're mad to not keep your Windows updated.
I have used computers many years.
I have also seen the most up-to-date Windows 7 (32 & 64 Bit) versions severely compromised with trojans & malware.
_____
A lot (not all) of trojans come from the following:
-> User is using IE or a variant of it without Active-X scripting disabled. Therefore, autorun malware installs itself.
-> User installs "free" program that adds downloader trojan/rootkit/malware...
-> User does not use any form of Antivirus (making infection easier).
-> User does not use any firewall (else firewall is disabled by malware or User).
-> No form of sandboxing is used.
-> User is running full Admin account.
_____
I would say that the main 3 causes of infection on machines I see are:
* Users running XP (with no service pack... Prior to SP2, XP suffered many problems...).
* Using IE (without Active-X scripting disabled).
* Installing rogue executables (to get a "free" screensaver, editor, other).
_____
There are, of course, many other reasons... But the main reason I don't on this machine, is I test a lot of things.
I have all my important things backed up, & this machine is solely for personal testing reasons.
I haven't seen any PC that is cannot be infected due to being fully updated. All PC's are.
I routinely see PC's that are plagued with problems (whether updates are on or off).
Most seem to be where they run locally downloaded files that have a malicious payload that they grant full permissions to run.
But even having the most up-to-date machine won't block these from running & doing damage.
It is critical, therefore, to watch what you allow to run on your machine.
What I do, I don't always recommend to others to do. I do things for the sake of learning, because I like to know things.
I am not recommending this to others, but here are additional reasons I have disabled Windows Updates (for this test machine).
-> Windows Updates can be large & take up lots of bandwidth. Downloads & surfing in general are much faster with it turned off.
-> Windows Updates continually wish to reboot after application of updates. I need my sanity. I reboot frequently enough while testing.
-> Windows Updates grow huge over time, & attempts to uninstall any bad update, whether consecutively or not, often cause problems & hose machines.
-> The largeness creates slowdowns as Windows becomes larger, & patches are applied on top of patches.
-> Once in a blue moon, Windows Update downloads a badly written driver that brings a system down.
-> Windows Updates may enable Windows Defender, who may try to (mistakenly) delete files from your flash drive or HDD that are NOT malware or viruses.
-> Windows Updates may download (automatically) programs that check your activation. Though I bought Windows, I detest being spied on like a criminal.
-> Windows activation checks may leave files on your computer, that takes a technically inclined person to fully remove.
-> Occasionally, a major update can/may/will break software on your computer. Especially ones changing the way address randomization is handled, etc.
-> Over time, Windows Updates can slow a pc to sometimes double or triple as slow. Fast machines may still be fast, 3x slower isn't something I can deal with.
Lastly, there has never been a fully up-to-date & patched Windows that is unsubsceptible to malware. Let me stress that again. Even the most patched system with the most up-to-date antivirus can be over-run with keyloggers, trojans, phishing, toolbars, redirectors, etc. Especially when that cause is a locally run file that inherits full permissions to install everything (program + malicious payload) by clicking ok.
Sure, it helps to have up-to-date antivirus (i do have that, yes) but newer exploits oft have no definitions for a day or two, or sometimes days or weeks while A/V companies try to crack the encryption sophisticated rootkits use in order to provide a method to remove them.
So, long story short is... I do not recommend to others to turn off Updates, but I know I do it to mine for the reason's above.
I like my system fast for testing, & I know full well how to quickly remove malware that gets on mine during testing, so I am not worried.
Restore/re-image/backup/re-install/etc... I use all kinds of programs to test what is the best, & also to see how they work.
Sorry if it seems a bit foolish to you. I have my reasons on this machine.
Hope u understand.
I have used Windows since 3.0 (and other computers long before that). I have always kept Windows up to date (via ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/ in the 3.0 and 95 days), and none of my computers have ever been infected with malware.
I don't know if that is because I always keep all my software up to date, or because I do not visit any stupid websites?
Either way, there is a good reason why Microsoft and other software companies spend a lot of effort to regularly release security updates. There is no software that cannot be exploited somehow, and all computer users should keep all software updated.
Your best friend in this matter: Secunia PSI.
Your best friend in this matter: Secunia PSI.
I very much support this statement
@Super Fast As you know many visitors to this site have MUCH less computer knowledge than you, perhaps you have been lucky but the endorse this behavior, as I stated, is stupid and irresponsible.
I very much support this statement
@Super Fast As you know many visitors to this site have MUCH less computer knowledge than you, perhaps you have been lucky but the endorse this behavior, as I stated, is stupid and irresponsible.
Yes, I know this. This is a testing machine, not a business machine.
What would be the point of maxing the updates on a testing machine?
When you test sometimes a few thousand programs in a week or month, it is pointless to max the updates on that machine.
The large numbers and diversity of programs I test guarantee problems no matter how "up-to-date" it is.
Of course, & even if it were max updated, I test so many programs that if they did have rootkits/malware embedded, it would still infect the machine.
Updates won't block that.
I do keep the firewall on, AVG updated with resident shield sometimes on, sometimes off (Resident shield can detect programs on the flash drive as viruses & offer to delete them when in fact, they are not. Programs like XPY or Vispa that use NSIS scripts are considered by many virus scanners to be a threat when it is just the way they work that causes the problem.).
For this reason, I sometimes turn resident shield on or off while testing, depending on what I am doing.
There are all kinds of reasons for updating Windows to the max, but since even that would do nothing to block the malware that piggybacks on programs, it would be useless to do so on my test machine.
_____
@PWillener, I do occasionally grab an infection.
While I normally do not get infections due to the way I handle the installs, I sometimes permit it for the sake of learning what a rootkit/infection does so I can learn more about removal methods that work for that particular infection.
Stop.
Wait.
You're talking about how you don't run updates on a test machine?
and you expect (had you not been called out on it) a casual reader (let's say someone who came here, asked a question, got that question answer and was chilling in the lounge reading threads) to get that from
Seems the worst fears are realized, & people can download malware with full permissions via Windows Update
seems to me, again had you not been called out on it, a member with over a thousand posts who says "don't use windows update, it'll give you malware" on a website that deals with system programs might cause some people to go "Oh snap, he probably knows what he is talking about."
Super Fast You are not the only human being in the universe, get that through your skull. I'm sick of tip-toeing around this. Stop posting irresponsible things. At no point in this thread do you even insinuate that you don't do windows update on a test machine. You stated that you don't use windows update period. You didn't even say the words test machine until post six, and then state it like it's a matter of fact.
Then you state
What I do, I don't always recommend to others to do. I do things for the sake of learning, because I like to know things.
While I am not recommending this to others
What do you think you are doing in starting a thread like this ESPECIALLY with such an inflammatory title and comment.
The Regular members are BY FAR not the only people who visit here, yes we who are here all the time can just go "oh that's just SF being his self."
I meant everything I said to you in Private (both the mean and the nice) so shape up or take a break from the site for a bit.
I stated earlier that I do not recommend this for the normal user. Of course not.
I saw nothing wrong with posting the results I obtained on my machine.
I test programs by the 1,000(s).
Were I to allow updates, WGA (or equivalent) would install if I were not uber vigilant.
Windows Updates would turn Windows Defender on, which would auto-kill programs it did not like, with some permanently erased instead of recycled.
Updates would suck a major portion of my machine bandwidth down the tube.
Windows would be incessant about reminders to reboot. Often enough.
Machine would break because some apps will have to operate differently once certain updates are applied.
What's up, man? Why so angry? Did I do something wrong?
I did state that I don't use Updates (on this machine) because I do a lot of testing.
I have bolded the statements I made earlier not recommending it to others, so it is more visible.
I apologize if there was any misunderstanding?
You should know that I have long not recommended everything I do to others, correct? (And that I do a lot of testing for the sake of knowledge).
Some av's (eg Emsisoft Anti-Malware) even state as system requirements for install that you must be up to date with all services packs.
Windows XP, Vista, 7 or 8 - with the latest service pack installed
Most software companies anyway don't want people testing their softwares on 'outdated' systems, they like users to give themselves a head start in the security stakes.
Some av's (eg Emsisoft Anti-Malware) even state as system requirements for install that you must be up to date with all services packs.
Most software companies anyway don't want people testing their softwares on 'outdated' systems, they like users to give themselves a head start in the security stakes.
I am well aware.
There are certain programs (address books/games/etc) that must be run (at least initially) on older systems to find how they work to migrate to newer platforms.
And there are still some things that you can do easier in XP than in 7.
Examples:
-> XP Only -> Drag from explorer Window onto Desktop to create shortcut to that folder.
-> XP Only -> Arrow key down on a treed out folder to navigate to the next (7 makes you hit Enter on each new folder to view it, else click it).
-> XP Only -> User can tree the Desktop.
In 7, users cannot tree the Desktop. Yes, I know, right-click folder pane & expand to current folder. But the Desktop folder is different from normal folders.
I normally use 7, but sometimes I revert to XP (because there are still things you can learn about it).
Sure, I know XP is considered outdated, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have anything to offer in the sake of knowledge.
I could probably show you things that would blow your mind, but I rather not.
Also, I like your new Avatar icon! It's really cute!
I am well aware.
There are certain programs (address books/games/etc) that must be run (at least initially) on older systems to find how they work to migrate to newer platforms.
And there are still some things that you can do easier in XP than in 7.
Examples:
-> XP Only -> Drag from explorer Window onto Desktop to create shortcut to that folder.
-> XP Only -> Arrow key down on a treed out folder to navigate to the next (7 makes you hit Enter on each new folder to view it, else click it).
-> XP Only -> User can tree the Desktop.
In 7, users cannot tree the Desktop. Yes, I know, right-click folder pane & expand to current folder. But the Desktop folder is different from normal folders.
I normally use 7, but sometimes I revert to XP (because there are still things you can learn about it).
Sure, I know XP is considered outdated, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have anything to offer in the sake of knowledge.
I could probably show you things that would blow your mind, but I rather not.
Also, I like your new Avatar icon! It's really cute!
Keep on topic.
What the heck has this to do with this thread ? (which to refresh your memory is about Windows Updates)
-> XP Only -> Drag from explorer Window onto Desktop to create shortcut to that folder.-> XP Only -> Arrow key down on a treed out folder to navigate to the next (7 makes you hit Enter on each new folder to view it, else click it).
-> XP Only -> User can tree the Desktop
In 7, users cannot tree the Desktop. Yes, I know, right-click folder pane & expand to current folder. But the Desktop folder is different from normal folders. .
If you don't stop going on about things which have nothing to do with the topic your posts which deviate will be removed.
Keep on topic.
What the heck has this to do with this thread ? (which to refresh your memory is about Windows Updates)
If you don't stop going on about things which have nothing to do with the topic your posts which deviate will be removed.
You were the one that deviated:
"Some av's (eg Emsisoft Anti-Malware) even state as system requirements for install that you must be up to date with all services packs.
Most software companies anyway don't want people testing their softwares on 'outdated' systems, they like users to give themselves a head start in the security stakes."
BTW, there are ways to fool it into installing & running in less than stated requirements for EMI (I shall not list them here).
I stated in response to your statement, that I XP does have features unavailable in 7 (as 7 also has that XP doesn't). There are reasons to use both.
I stated some of my reasons. Not to deviate from Windows Update, but to respond to your statement concerning EMI.
Lest you forget, I bolded the statements above NOT recommending others do as I do, since I do test things mainly for the sake of knowledge & learning.
Do not make the mistake that just because I use this for a personal machine that I do not use measures different so on others.
While updates are worthless on this machine, because of bandwidth issues (I have multiple machines connected to my internet) as well as others I listed above...
I will list yet another reason. I like to get malware on this machine. I like it, because I like to see how things work. How can you see how they work if you never experience them?
That is not to say they are worthless for all machines.
Please keep on focus & don't mistake the fact that I have a testing machine, as me recommending such for all. See bolded above.
Please keep on focus & don't mistake the fact that I have a testing machine, as me recommending such for all. See bolded above.
In that case I see no need for this antagonistic thread to continue. Sorry but closed
future readers please note that his Bolding was added after the fact and the mention of testing machine was buried in post 6