Stealthy Windows Update Raises Serious Concerns 362
UniversalVM writes "What is the single biggest issue that bothers open source advocates about proprietary software? It is probably the ability of the vendor to pull stunts like Microsoft's recent stealth software update and subsequent downplaying of any concerns. Their weak explanation seems to be a great exercise in circular logic: 'Had we failed to update the service automatically, users would not have been able to successfully check for updates and, in turn, users would not have had updates installed automatically or received expected notifications.' News.com is reporting that all of the updated files on both XP and Vista appears to be in windows update itself. This is information that was independently uncovered by users and still not released by Microsoft."
So Windows Update Has Problems (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the complete list to prove it (sorry for the lame formatting, it's Slashdot's lameness filter):
Re:So Windows Update Has Problems (Score:5, Informative)
Langa Letter: Exploring Windows Alternatives [informationweek.com]
Avoid Windows Vista anti-piracy shenanigans by using BSD, OpenSolaris or Linux. [blogsavy.com]
Mac OS X Leopard vs Microsoft Windows Vista [pirillo.com]
Dump Windows Update, use alternatives [windowssecrets.com]
Alternatives to Windows Software [linux.ie]
I'm sure you could find a lot more information, too. So there's really no excuse for still using Windows, especially if there's really nothing keeping you from switching to one of the many alternatives.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So Windows Update Has Problems (Score:5, Informative)
As for no guarantee your PC could even run Linux, just download and burn (or just buy) a "live CD". A live CD is a CD you just boot from and it boots your computer up in Linux. During boot it will check hardware and you can see for yourself if it finds everything natively. If it doesn't, keep in mind that you can search the web for whatever hardware and Linux and see if drivers might be available. You would be surprised how much hardware is well supported under Linux although there are holes. Another thing about a live CD - since it is running from the CD, don't be put off by the slowness. Running from the CD will be much slower than if it was installed. If you have a lot of RAM, it may not seem that slow but CDs are much slower than hard drives. All you are doing is seeing what it looks like and if/how it will run on your computer.
As for Wine, it supposedly works pretty good but it may not support what you want to run. If you are wanting to run Windows programs under Linux, check out Crossover Office from Codeweavers. I use it to run Microsoft Office under Linux and it works perfectly. (I spend much more time now in Open Office though) So do a number of other supposedly Windows-only programs. But if you dual boot, you can always just run whatever you want under Windows but do your long haul stuff under Linux. You will probably be a lot safer doing anything requiring good security under Linux than under Windows. I never order anything online or do any financial stuff in Windows. It's just too risky.
ANd about upgrading to run Linux - not necessary. If your computer was running OK with Windows, it will seem quite peppy under Linux. Windows is a memory and resource hog. Linux is not. Anyone with a computer that now can't run Vista ought to take a look at running Linux instead. They will get what feels like a new computer and get a very nice OS at the same time.
And don't let the supposed complexity of Linux fool you and keep you away. It isn't that complex. In Windows you just can't do a lot of stuff or they make the decisions for you. In Linux, you can do pretty much whatever you want. In Linux, everything is file based. You have config files and such that you just edit to make changes. Nothing is hidden from you. A lot of the internals are best accessed on the command line once you get more familiar but you can also admin the machine from the GUI if you want. As you get more experienced, you'll want to learn the command line though - much more efficient and really easier. Or you can stick to the GUI and pretend you are just running a really stable and fast version of Windows. You don't have to dig into the guts of Linux if you don't want to. It's just that you can if you would like.
But Linux is a lot easier to try out and use than a lot of people imagine. It's why it is growing so much in user base recently. Give a live CD a try and see for yourself. That's the best way to experience it.
Re:So Windows Update Has Problems (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You may consider buying a pre-installed Ubuntu system (or something that claims Linux compatibility). Less costly than a Mac, though IMO both types of systems are really worth it!
Some Linux system vendors:
Dell
HP
System76
Emperor Linux
Re:So Windows Update Has Problems (Score:4, Interesting)
But the fact is that under Linux you don't have so many programs hooking themselves into the OS to even cause the same kinds of problems as under Windows. Also, it's a more advanced topic, but under Linux, you can separate out your personal files (your home directory) from the OS. That way, if you did have to reinstall the OS, the next time you log in, your experience is like you never left. This also makes backing up easier.
The reality, though, is that you reinstall Linux rarely. Windows you have to reinstall much more frequently.
And the last thing - Linux is FREE. Windows is not. And you can install it on as many computers as you want. No phoning home. No stealth installs. No crap.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:So Windows Update Has Problems (Score:5, Insightful)
The overhead of using Wine is very small. It is a thin layer on top of native Linux, and Windows itself isn't emulated. The difference between Linux and Windows is much more important with regard to performance. As it turns out, sometimes the Windows drivers are faster and sometimes the Linux drivers are faster. I've seen games run faster under Wine than under native Windows.
Re:So Windows Update Has Problems (Score:5, Insightful)
(Disclaimer: I've never used Wine and have no idea what I'm talking about.)
Anyway, not trying to argue; Linux probably isn't a good option for you right now. But try the Ubuntu live CD, and the next time you reinstall XP, consider repartitioning and setting up a Windows/Linux dual-boot. That way you can use Windows to get your work done and play your games, and fiddle with Linux in your spare time to see if you can get your games to run there. You said your main problem is that you don't know much about Linux; this would be a good way to do something about that.
Re:So Windows Update Has Problems (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So Windows Update Has Problems (Score:5, Informative)
sudo apt-get install sun-java6-jre sun-java6-plugin sun-java6-fonts
sudo update-alternatives --config java
(select the number that says "/usr/lib/jvm/java-6-sun/jre/bin/java")
sudo gedit
(add
Now all Java should work properly.
You can also give VirtualBox [virtualbox.org] a try. It works well and offers a "seamless" mode (Windows apps appear on the Linux desktop). The only downside to VirtualBox is licensing. The binary that's available is under their "Personal Use and Evaluation License", but they do provide an Ubuntu repository for it. There is a GPL version available that does the same things, but you have to compile it from source.
At the moment I'm using both VMWare Server and VirtualBox OSE (the GPL version) equally.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
My only addition to his reply to you is this:
hard drives are getting pretty cheap now days. Pick up a drive and add it as a slave and install Linux on this drive, leaving your primary Windows install as is...sort of.
During installing Linux to the slave drive, you will get boot-loader options. Different distro's of Linux handle this a little differently, but basically they all give you an option to 'see' the Windows install and give it a place in the boot menu. Don't let this scare
nLite (Score:4, Informative)
I do take issue with some of your points though. Your knowledge of the DOS/Win32 operating environment is no doubt something that you have accumulated slowly over a number of years. I too found the unix command line unfamiliar and painful when I first used it. I'm still a novice, but I now find it more productive than cmd.exe by an order of magnitude.
I found installing and using Gentoo to be a great learning experience. The lack of a graphical installer (at the time) forces you to use the command line for everything. If you follow the install manual "blind" you pick up a few things. If you go through it reading the manuals for every command you use, you pick up a lot of things. I didn't get along with the graphical distributions at the time, I couldn't find any of the options I wanted. They have improved, but my TV server still runs Gentoo since it was the only distribution that supported my hardware at the time.
Your old hardware is much more likely to be supported than newer hardware.
As for games? I'm not going to chime in with the rest of the people in this thread and claim you can use Linux to run them all. I like to play games. I intend to keep running Windows until I give them up (which may well happen, they innovate less every year), or until Linux versions are commonplace.
As a software developer, I also can't do without Windows. I depend on Windows, because it's where most of my code lives. But I love open-source. I'm lucky enough to be doing a job where I don't have to avoid it - I can use what I like. And if I have to pick and choose, using OSS tools are just overall much less hassle. I don't have to requisition them, justify purchase costs, fill in forms, wait thirteen weeks for approval. If they have bugs, I don't have to contact the supplier and engage in complex political games about who's fault it is, I just fix them. OSS for me is just far more agile and productive.
So how does this work? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You re-install the operating system from the original media, configure your network connection, run Windows Update, and let MS do the work for you.
Re: (Score:2)
I maintain a custom XP Pro disc. I use nLite [nliteos.com] to apply these custom changes. I purchased XP Pro w/SP2 at one point for a friends computer that I built. The only options that are not pre-set on the custom disc is the serial number that I force new computer users to buy because I'm not a large advocate of piracy (I, personally, use Gentoo Linux in my home). I update the disc every so often (us
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you are thinking in terms of an image, you can indeed create a similar disc(usually on a DVD) using off-the-shelf software. I'm not sure of any free software, but there is a lot of commercial software. Just try a Google search for "Windows Restore Disc" [google.com]
Or are y
Re: (Score:2)
Dark days.
There used to be a utility [autopatcher.com] which did what you want, but Microsoft killed it off a fortnight ago. Now if you install from a pre-SP2 cd, you have to get online to patch, and take your chances with the viruses.
Re: (Score:2)
No, once you have SP2 (and most install disks of course are SP2), that's it for prepackaged updates. Everything else has to come in one at a time, either by Windows update or other means. I think last time I did it was about 4-6 reboots worth, spread over a couple dozen individual updates, to reinstall XP SP2.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The following doesn't apply to you clang_jangle but I have to get it off my chest:
It's a pity that
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This
Re: (Score:2)
A backdoor that contacts the internet often enough for it to patch your system? But not often enough to have been known about before this?!
I guess it's tinfoil time, but a keylogger would have to send what... 500k a month?
Sure windows is huge and bloated, what tipped you off the 4gig directory? But that's not too bad, I mean you get word and paint! What more could you need?
Re:So Windows Update Has Problems (Score:4, Funny)
The last update.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, did anyone besides me flinch when reading from MS that "we have turned on [reduced functionality mode] for pirated copies of Vista"..?? What else are they able to turn on and turn off with their new master control pa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Does anyone doubt that MS has engineered Vista with non-removable backdoors at least for their own use?
Anyone want a tinfoil hat [cmu.edu]?
As you know, it's easy to compile a backdoor into the open-source "login" app for Linux. It's also easy to have compile GCC so that it automatically compiles in the backdoor, while still being possible to compile the backdoor generator into GCC - and you won't be able to avoid such backdoors unless you use an entirely purified work envrionment (i.e. don't use external binaries.)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, any Linux distro could put a poisoned binary of GCC in their boot disks, which would then create further poisoned binaries
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone know of a good 3D video card supported by Debian for 3-D out of the box?
Good or supported - which do you prefer? Can't have both. ATI's drivers are behind, but at least
they've promised source code. NVidia's drivers are necessary to download after the fact. Some don't
like them because they're closed, but I just want friggin' Beryl to work. Intel's are excellent,
but the cards aren't good..yet. Only onboard video for now, with PCIe cards in the works.
Debian is also a painful distro for NVidia users, due to licenses and such. I've been using Ubuntu
for a long time because it's easi
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I get your drift, but had the power failure occured while you were aware of the ongoing update, the effect would have been the same. You can't blame that on the stealthyness of the update.
Note: I'm also assuming that during a normal - i.e. intended - shutdown this kind of thing can't happen anyway, as anyone can always decide to shutdown a machine while an ongoing automatic update is in progress, especially as most users don't even seem to know what an OS update is in the first place. So it's a condition
Re: (Score:2)
Yeesh.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a big deal (Score:5, Informative)
The update only updated the Windows Update software itself, nothing in Windows.
It did not update if you have automatic updates turned off.
It did update if you had "Notify me" turned on. This is a point of contention, but MS says they needed to do the update to continue to notify users of actual updates.
Finally, this doesn't apply to any networks running a WSUS (or whatever it's called now) server.
Yes it is a big deal (Score:3, Insightful)
In this case Microsoft was illegaly entering the custumer owned computer, using the customer paid connection, hardware, in order to achive something that is beneficial for Microsoft.
Just try to do the same for a Microsoft owned computer: the full power of legal prosecusion will fall on your neck for countless charges, with likely jail term panishment if convicted.
Who is going to press charges for the same act against Microso
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The Windows Update software is at least as much a part of Windows as Internet Explorer.
It did not update if you have automatic updates turned off.
...and why didn't it just tell you that it needed an update ?
It did update if you had "Notify me" turned on. This is a point of contention, but MS says they needed to do the update to continue to notify users of actual updates.
So basically what I do know now is that Microsoft is unab
Re: (Score:2)
The Windows Update software is at least as much a part of Windows as Internet Explorer.
Correct. If Windows Update gets waxed, it has the same effect on your operating system if Interent Explorer gets waxed. You can still play around with the computer that's relatively "stable", in the same way you can browse the internet using Firefox.
If windows update gets damaged, you can run system restore to try and recover it. Alternativly, use the Windows Vista CD and run a repair installation to restore damaged files (although you'll need to redownload some updates.)
...and why didn't it just tell you that it needed an update ?
It doesn't do that if it is tu
Re:Not a big deal (Score:4, Insightful)
It's called a neighborhood watch. Neighborhood watches are effective if 1. people watch for suspicious activity 2. when suspicious activity is noted, authorities are called to take care of business.
My computer, my property. I give you limited permission to put your platform on it. That's my choice. I can limit as much or as little as I want on my own property. That's it. No argument. I can even like Windows and still limit it as much as I want. Mine. Mine. Mine. Possession is 9/10 of the law. The more we give other entities the right to walk on our property, the more they'll call it theirs by custom.
Re:Not a big deal... so now that hackers know... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Sure, all they need to do is forge all of Microsoft's digital certificates first. Patches are signed or else they don't install without warnings.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.informationweek.com/830/hacker.htm [informationweek.com]
Re:Not a big deal... so now that hackers know... (Score:4, Informative)
So explain to everyone how a hacker without prior access will get the machine to go to their server instead of the MS server, present the correct authenication, which still has not been broken, and then forge security certificates for every file they want to download?
A system would already have to be compromised to even attempt to use or subvert this system and would be a lot harder than just taking control of other areas of the OS...
Are people really this stupid?
Re: (Score:2)
Since the updates are signed (and have been for years), no, I'm not particularly worried.
Big Deal... (Score:5, Informative)
The biggest problem I have with this update, is that it proves beyond any doubt that Microsoft deliberately placed a "hole" in the security of their OS for their own purposes. It is nothing less than something on the internet contacting the OS, opening a hole, then running software with root/admin permissions to change something in the OS itself. Something many people have suspected because of the so-called security patches that move holes around instead of actually closing them, has now been proven to be true.
This must be a holy grail for a Windows hacker. This hole was put in the OS specifically to take over a computer, and Microsoft's reaction to its discovery shows they obviously have no intention of closing it - just continuing to use it when desired. You can bet that finding this hole and ways to exploit it are now the top priority of hackers around the world.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yawn...
You have to fake a digital signature from MS to install any patch for Windows. It's always been this way.
If a hacker figures out how to defeat the PKI infrastructure and fake the signature, then everyone has problems (ssh, encrypted email, https, etc), not just Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Windows Update has an elevated level of access to the system. What if Windows Update were "updated" to allow things to be installed from someone other than Microsoft? Or so it would install software even if you told it not to.
If the software has the ability to change Windows, there really is no difference between modifying the software than can modify Windows and modifying Windows itself security-wise. That's like saying there's
Re: (Score:2)
That's the craziest circular logic I've heard in a while. Is there some reason it can't "Notify Me" of the need to update windows updates? That's what happens when you reinstall an SP2 box -- first time it boots it says it needs to update windows update.
Bitching for no reason? -- someone is installing new executables to the system directory without even telling the administrator of the box!? You're right, nothing could POSS
Re: (Score:2)
That's what some people are claiming but I'm suspicious.
My 2 computers are on 24/7 and I have auto updates turned off. Neither one has received the "stealth" update.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's been confirmed.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=779 [zdnet.com]
I don't see why you'd be suspicious. Microsoft has a history of ignoring user preferences when it comes to privacy choices.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/09/ms_wga_phones_home/ [theregister.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
If I set my computer to "Download and notify", that's what I want it to do.
If it installs updates while it is set to "Download and notify", it is doing something I explicitly told it not to do. That means I do not have control of my own computer.
Re:Not a big deal (Score:5, Informative)
- Automatic (downloads and installs updates automatically)
- Download but not install (downloads automatically, but you choose when to install)
- Notify but not download (notifies you of updates, but doesnt download)
- Turn off Automatic Updates
If the 4th setting above is selected, there are no updates at all, stealth or otherwise. The service is off, and no communication is done with the WU servers.
This stealth update was a surprise for the people who had the 2nd or 3rd setting above selected. Under these settings you expect the update to be downloaded (or you expect to be notified of it) but you do not expect it to be installed without your input. Under these settings your computer still communicates with the Update servers on a regular basis to check whether new updates are available.
MS claims that the stealth update to the Windows Update system itself was required so that it could still check for new updates. Im not sure if I buy that myself, but as long as the limit this behaviour to Windows Update updates only, I can live with it. If they try it for any other updates (like WGA or the like) you can bet I'll be disabling the service entirely right quick.
Re:Not a big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if that was true, that's not proper behavior. Under the circumstances, I might see a level 3 being upgraded to a level 2 (download), and after download it should simply prompt and notify that further update checks may fail and that additional patches may be available after this update. That's the whole point of those settings, to not having anything installed without permission. If you know that that upgrade *is* pending and that others *may* be pending, it should be sufficient for everyone and without secretly installing anything. That said, not exactly a big issue IMO.
Re: (Score:2)
What you can't do is install arbitrary patches. Like has been said before, you need to be able to fake digital signatures from MS to install patches, and that's (currently) impossible.
Dangerous prescedent (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The first is sneaky and underhanded. The second is, or should be, a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
I immediately went into the options and eventually found the off-switch, but I'm just informing you that it's not just Microsoft who does this.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's a big difference... in Firefox, the "OFF" switch works. The "ASK ME FIRST" switch works. The "ON" switch works.
And the thing you missed, the installer asks you to choose how you want it handled during the install. If you installed this under Linux or some other OS that may not have an installer (or downloaded an archive instead of an installer), then you should have read the accompanying readme and manually set the option after "install" as instructed.
World of difference from MS
Resistance is Futile (Score:2, Funny)
Take what you get (Score:2)
Oh man, this one again? (Score:5, Informative)
We already did this one just two days ago [slashdot.org].
The anti-Microsoft FUD was thoroughly debunked by numerous Slashdot posters. It was also thoroughly debunked by numerous comments in reply to the various external sources cited in the older Slashdot article.
They updated Windows Update, when people explicitly visited the Windows Update site. That is all. They are not pushing out updates to critical system files without any user intervention.
Last time, several posters asked whether Slashdot would at least have the decency to correct the blatantly Microsoft-bashing headline/article. They didn't, they posted it again. <sigh> Go Zonk!
Re:Oh man, this one again? (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, I don't use Windows, so this doesn't really affect me. Still, I think this should be a heads up that it is time to consider other systems.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with the update, from what I've read, is that it happened regardless of whether or not you set WU to ask before installing updates. It isn't a question of what they updated, it is a question of how they are able to simply bypass that configuration option.
Visiting the Windows Update site manually and using the corresponding control in a web browser, is nothing to do with the automatic updating system within the last few versions of Windows. There is no bypassing involved: we're talking about two fundamentally separate mechanisms, which happen to have the same end result.
As far as I'm aware, it has always been the case that when you visit the Windows Update site — a conscious, active decision by the user — and load up the corresponding control
Re: (Score:2)
" "The Windows Update client is configured to automatically check for updates anytime a system uses the WU service, independent of the selected settings for handling updates. This has been the case since we introduced the Automatic Update feature in Windows XP. In fact, WU has autoupdated itself many times in the past," he (Nate Clinton) said." -- TFA
If you weren't following, Nate Clinton is the leader of the Windows Update team. So the guy who is b
Re: (Score:2)
If you read the post from Microsoft, you'll see that they admit, and justify, doing precisely that. I don't see any FUD happening, the Windows Update manager clearly stated that Windows Update will (and apparently has already multiple times in the past) install new system files without any user intervention, even if you've told it to notify you first, because the Windows Update group decided this was a better behavior
Re: (Score:2)
They DID NOT manually visit the WU site.
Can you cite a source for that? None of the sources I found that claimed to reproduce this seemed to specify either way, and both articles mentioned before were overflowing with comments from people saying the same thing about what actually happens.
And yet still (Score:2)
Sabotaging certified systems. (Score:4, Insightful)
The most secure setting provided (that I am aware of) is "do not install updates". If a system's certification can be sabotaged by Microsoft covert behavior, who's going to pay when a system fails and the system is demonstrated to have been subverted with tripwire-like checksum failures? Microsoft? The applications vendor?
Re:Sabotaging certified systems. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wishful thinking. (Score:2)
Oh, were that only true.
My solution (Score:3, Interesting)
Bug fixes please, not promises (Score:2)
My biggest gripe is getting stuck with a bug (like the strip(1) which deleted already stripped binaries on the end-of-life'd AT&T 3B1) that I cannot get fixed or fix myself.
Updating update (Score:2)
Oh, and wild-speculation-with-no-evidence time: this seems awfully soon after the WGA failure debacle, I'll bet the changes are to do with preventing a rerun of that.
Cheers,
What append if ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Had we failed to update the service automatically, users would not have been able to successfully check for updates and, in turn, users would not have had updates installed automatically or received expected notifications.
What append when someone install XP (OR Vista) from zero and get the OldAndBad Windows Update ? He will never be able to get update ?
Someone have feet in his mouth.
It boggles my mind (Score:2)
Microsoft decided years ago that users were stupid and their choices to be ignored, and they haven't looked back ever since as people just keep spending good money on whatever rights-eroding crap they put out. It boggles my mind how much most people just quietly put up with this shit.
My Head Hurts (Score:2)
"Had we failed to update the service automatically, users would not have been able to successfully check for updates and, in turn, users would not have had updates installed automatically or received expected notifications."
I read this three or four times trying to make some sense of it and got a screaming headache for my effort.
Fortunately, I keep the AU and BITS services disabled until and unless I need them. This hasn't happened since last February and that's the date on the WU files. Every so ofte
Reminds me the latin proverb... (Score:2, Funny)
In obligitory SOVIET RUSSIA... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
RTFA (Score:3, Informative)
Read it again (the first time?), it wasn't on.
That's the problem, it updated even when disabled.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the problem, it updated even when disabled.
Um, No...
Can't SlashDot trolls read now? It was set to notify me of updates, it was NOT disabled. So this means it HAD TO BE IN COMMUNICATION WITH MS SERVERS TO NOTIFY THE USER.
Since the notification 'services/system' changed, it HAD to update itself or the user wouldn't get their 'NOTIFICATIONS'...
Get it yet?
Re: (Score:2)
Open Source makes it easy to detect and fix. (Score:2)
Assuming an open source software project tried this. What would happen?
* The code to download the update is published. They would have to risk having the backdoor discovered by someone working on the download code. Microsoft doesn't have that problem.
* The first time the code is used, and the unexpected downloads are detected, the downloader will be fixed and
Re: (Score:2)
So... you are assuming the users are knowledgeable enough to install Ubuntu, but too i
Re: (Score:2)
If I sell you a car and inform you that when I service it, I may alter the sensitivity of the steering or brakes or accelerator and that you should keep an eye out for said, and you don't and kill somebody by accident, that'
Re: (Score:2)
Only one program is affected, the updater itself. And the issue is that it downloads it's own updates differently than other updates, not asking you. But it only downloads it's own update if it is already downloading something else.
It seems very stealth, in that it'
Re: (Score:2)
Marked troll because I pointed out that /. ran this story two days ago.