OSNews

Yes, same here. All this news is based on internet rumors that are in my opionion usually pure crap.

I believe it happened here on one computer that didn't have the first wmf update installed when the other was released. I was told by a family member who's claim was that her computer did more or less what was reported in the article. I don't know how valid this claim is since the person is honest but also computer illiterate, but since I heard of it before this article was out, and now there is an article about it, I'm inclined to give the article the benifit of the doubt.

Just because it didn't happen to you doesn't mean it couldn't have happened to someone else.

Actually, that's a part of any software. No matter if it's proprietary or FLOSS.

The only difference is you have to pay huge amounts for the right to experience data loss with Windows.

Some custom software specifically includes coverage for things like data loss due to software failure ... but you end up paying quite a bit for it. :-)

but then, read your EULA, Microsoft is in no way ever responsible for a loss in data if you use its systems.

What about if Microsoft was the one who caused the data loss without the user's knowledge or consent? These aren't normal circumstances, and I would be very appreciative if someone were to point out the specific line(s) in the EULA that give Microsoft the right to remotely override your system settings and reboot your machine while it is unattended, which may or may not have resulted in the loss of data.

How did you verify that microsoft changed any setting on your system?
The majority of the posts from people complaining about the reboots shows they never understood their settings.
They always had this policy configured, they realized this particular reboot just because of the media attention around this patch.

Please note that I don't like MS policies at all, but with so much REAL problens from it we could avoid ghosts hunting.

Edited 2006-01-12 08:50

Well, since I'd say that most EULAs are legally enforceable...any judge would have to rule in favour of the complainant in such a situation...but then, given the Sony fracas, and the inability of any government body to take Sony to task for their illegal activities, I don't hold much hope of the ordinary average user's rights being protected by the system. The system now exists to protect the large and rich corporations, not the ordinary people like you and me.

Dave

This isn't strictly a Microsoft thing. Other companies and even independent developers of OSS have something similiar. I've seen it many times in the licenses where it will state "use at your own risk" or "Company is not responsible for any data loss, malfunctions, or harm caused by use of this software" or as simple as "the developer claims no responsibility".

Non-administrative users applying patces? Weird! What
does the admin do then? Ohhh. I see.. he/she is enjoying
the privilege of rebooting the system manually!

Furhermore, if you go deep enough into the registry, or
even deep into the code, you can change ANY option; and
even can remove vulnerabilities!

I cannot understand why an admin should have an
equivalent of a PhD degree in undocumented registry
features. We, UNIXers do such things in human readable
AND documented config files. (See OpSYS-101 notes/text books).

Uh ?
The patches are not applied by non-administrative users, the patches are installed by the windows update software when non-administrative users are logged on, however this was an administrator decision (wether the admin understood it or not).
If you are system administrator (even just for your home pc) and you are using an update option that you do not understand read something about it. This is valid for both linux and windows admins.

This entire topic just demonstrates how much windows users/admins don't care much about the details of their system until they get something they don't expect.
If there is a feature/option which they were not aware of, its MS overriding their decisions... what a joke.

I don't get it either, blind obedience and lack of experience with a decent OS is my only guess. The idea that the registry system is in any way better than the old ini files completely baffled me.

Yeah - like sendmail.cf

One config file, four O'Reilly guides, one topping 1200+ pages!

Like someone is really going to read all four books, or for that matter even one. Sysadmins for companies maybe, because it's their job to know every feature, but all the people I know who use programs like sendmail simply read one man page and then experiment a little to get the application working. It's not that hard.

Bad example too frankly, since Linux has no shortage of graphical e-mail clients that works very well. Another shortcomming with your argument is that you probably picked a fairly complicated configuration file, although never having used sendmail I really don't know how involved that is. Consider that the /etc/fstab configuration file is very straightforward and after spending a few minutes reading a man page I made changes to it that worked perfectly my very first time even opening the file.

Frankly whether you like configuration files or not is a matter of personal taste, I preffer well designed configuration applications, but I also preffer that settings be saved in configuration files than that they be saved in a regestry.

...Another shortcomming with your argument is that you probably picked a fairly complicated configuration file, although never having used sendmail I really don't know how involved that is...

Erm, my posting was tounge in cheek and anyone who has had to learn sendmail.cf would be able to relate to it.

Yours is, by your own admission, utterly uninformed. Worse, it got voted up...

Yeah, great, and how's the average user meant to know that? mmm?

Dave

Except it's all rumours.

Re: "Except it's all rumours."

What made you come to that conclusion? Did you even read the article which listed several reports from various users that their systems rebooted on their own after forcing the patch to be installed?

Yeah, then I read many more comments stating the opposite.

So, some people claim that it does reboot.
While most others claim it did not for them.

Your conclusion: Those 'reboot' people are liars or idiots that don't know what is going on???

It would be much more reasonable to say that this is possible under certain circumstances, rather than just assume it isn't.

Yeah, then I read many more comments stating the opposite.

You really didn't bother to count, didn't you? See, that's what happens when you're biased: you only count the resutls that reinforce your preconceived notions.

Only in this comments section, there were seven (7) people who said this didn't happen to them while they had the same settings (or didn't specifically say they didn't have the same settings), while there are 12 comments that say that this DID happen to them (most of them mentioning that they did have the same settings). So an informal survey of this comments section (which you yourself indicated as a valid source to form an opinion) shows that the problem is quite prevalent.

But then again, some people will go out of their way to defend Microsoft, not matter what...

Ok, a few things to point out here:
(1): Microsoft can afford much better and many more lawyers than you can.
(2): Microsoft engineered their EULA to keep themselves safe from the consiquences of stuff like this.
(3): The Microsoft patch as is understood by the general public, was not malicious but rather an important update.

I do not condone what Microsoft did, but at the same time I don't think you'll see them loosing in court over it during your lifetime.

Did it to me too. I have Windows set to tell me when updates are available. It told me of the WMF update, I ignored it for a few hours, then it installed it without permission. Every 15 minutes or so it would pop up a box telling me it would reboot in 5 minutes unless I clicked cancel. After doing that a few times, I put the laptop to in standby, and came back a few hours later to find that Windows had apparantly woken it up, rebooted, and gone back to sleep.

Finally, when I woke it up and logged in, it told me that there had been an important security updated that required these drastic measures.

Look, MS, I'm a smart user, I'm behind a NAT, AND I run a software firewall. I've let my desktop go unpatched for months without getting hacked. When I say I don't what updates being done behind my back, I mean it.

I have NEVER heard of the OS pulling a laptop or any computer out of standby, if Windows did anything it would have to have been before or after, and it's possible that it was just subtle enough for you not to notice.

When a computer is in standby there shouldn't be any OS code still running in the processor. I'd say there is none at all but that'd be a gamble since I'm not entirely sure.

Did it to me too. I have Windows set to tell me when updates are available. It told me of the WMF update, I ignored it for a few hours, then it installed it without permission. Every 15 minutes or so it would pop up a box telling me it would reboot in 5 minutes unless I clicked cancel. After doing that a few times, I put the laptop to in standby, and came back a few hours later to find that Windows had apparantly woken it up, rebooted, and gone back to sleep.

Finally, when I woke it up and logged in, it told me that there had been an important security updated that required these drastic measures.

Look, MS, I'm a smart user, I'm behind a NAT, AND I run a software firewall. I've let my desktop go unpatched for months without getting hacked. When I say I don't what updates being done behind my back, I mean it.

Now that's bizzarre. I've never had a double-post happen to me here before.

Yes.. I had this happen as well. Was not happy.

1) "Would you like to restart or delay ?"
- Clicked delay

3-5 mins or so passes.

2) "Would you like to restart or delay ?"
- Clicked delay

3) "Would you like to restart or delay ?"
- Clicked delay

5 minutes later, while I was still in a game, it boots me out and reboots. nice huh?

That's terrible.

There should be like a message saying, something like:

"A very critical security patch has been installed on
your system. You will need to restart your system for
this patch to take effect. Please save your work first,
and then click OK."

(How hard is it to write a dialog like that? It takes
you less than 5 minutes)

There shouldn't be any of this automatic restart
nonsense.

The point of software is to still have the user
controling the system. You do not trust a system
that does things by itself when you tell it not to
do things...Its a fundamental thing.

Nicc,

I understand your concern and frustration. The enterprise sector is more affected by this issue than home users due to some businesses can be financially affected both with downtime not planned and data loss. Forcing an update to be installed which reboots systems with out the end users permission is not acceptable. Microsoft should be held accountable for not ensuring this wouldn't happen. This is one of the differences between Windows and Linux systems where on Linux systems providing auto-update such as "SUSE Watcher" for SUSE Linux in most cases doesn't require a reboot. This in turn means providing less downtime while ensuring the system is up to date. The exception typically being only when a kernel or graphics driver is updated is when it's preferred to reboot on Linux.

Sounds like you need SUS service.

You wouldn't want a Windows security flaw patched if someone miles away decided when to reboot your computer!

One right [providing the patch] + One wrong [forceful implementation + forced reboot] doesn't make one right!

Plus ... why the hell *WOULDN'T* you want this security flaw patched?

It's not about not wanting it patched. It is about choosing the time to reboot to finalize the patch.

So because it didn't happen to you it's only happened "a few times"?

Seems that only by reading the comments on this board it's happened quite a few times.

And the point is not that one wouldn't want the security flaw patched, but rather that some people may want to decide WHEN it's patched...

That's very thoughtless. It shouldn't reboot WITHOUT PERMISSION, since the computer might be unattended and doing something important which has to finish.

I wonder if commercial servers did the same thing, that could be very bad if they weren't intended to simply be rebooted spontaneously like that. Companies do build in redundancy and backup systems, but that doesn't eliminate the possibility of data loss when a machine goes down.

It might be possible to block the built in Windows update feature with a firewall rule though, and then just open up the firewall when you want to check. Given this I'd certainly consider it.

"poor people Their computers rid themselves of a bad vulnerability and rebooted.. *cries* "

no! I think you are changing the topic... the patch is not the problem at all, it is a solution to a problem. but no matter how serious a problem [unless its something to do with aliens ] - it still doesn't give someone sitting in Redmond a right to reboot anyone's PC without EXPLICIT Permission!

of course this has only happened in a few PCs [mountain out of molehill situation] but I am commenting generally that this situation shouldn't happen!

I once saw a video against the Trusted Computing Project and it ended with something like this ... '.. in the process of establishing trust, *they* decided not to trust you !! ' [not the exact words, but somewhat similar]

Ironic!

poor people Their computers rid themselves of a bad vulnerability and rebooted.. *cries*

If I were an admin running a W2k3 production server system, I would VERY WELL want the system to ask me before it reboots!!
Ever seen a large, complex DB system come down hard? Sure, usually you can recover nicely, but it's extra work you just don't need.

No, people like him, (and other sheep around here who blindly defend Microsoft, NO MATTER WHAT), would not have seen a DB come down.
In fact they would never have seen a mission critical app, as the only experience they have of "computing" is playing games and running Microsoft Office.

"The easiest way to fix this is to not use that option. Personally I never let anything get downloaded to any machines I admin unless I tell it to download it."

Common sense is a very powerful thing.

I'm still laughing at the so called "admin" who claimed his server rebooted as a result of this.

I am still laughing at people like you, who blindly defend Microsoft no matter what wrong-doings they do.

What's next ?

Next weeks patch against WMF, (and there probably will be one), will auto-install on your PC, reboot the PC without your consent, send a listing of all the files in My Documents. Then every week report back to Microsoft telling which files were added/changed/deleted.

BUT

people like you will say " Microsoft fixed my PC, they are the greatest, why can linux not do this" etc etc etc

same old story from the same old sheep.