Forbes Blasts Latests Windows 7 Patch as Malware 230
Forbes contributor Jason Evangelho has nothing good to say about a recent Windows 7 patch that's causing a range of trouble for some users. He writes:
If you have Windows 7 set to automatically update every Tuesday, it may be to permanently disable that feature. Microsoft has just confirmed that a recent update — specifically KB 3004394 — is causing a range of serious problems and recommends removing it.
The first issue that caught my attention, via AMD’s Robert Hallock, is that KB 3004394 blocks the installation or update of graphics drivers such as AMD’s new Catalyst Omega. Nvidia users are also reporting difficulty installing GeForce drivers, though I can’t confirm this personally as my machines are all Windows 8.1. Hallock recommended manually uninstalling the update, advice now echoed officially by Microsoft.
More troubles are detailed in the article; on the upside, Microsoft has released a fix.
Short sighted (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: Short sighted (Score:5, Informative)
Can do this without logging off (Score:5, Informative)
While your steps work, you can also just focus on the desktop (by clicking the background, for example), then press ALT+F4. You will then be presented with the shutdown menu which includes the same options you cited, but without the need to log off first.
Re: Can do this without logging off (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, just closed the browser and that was it. Win7 64bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I'm a dopey fkker, I forgot to click to desktop!
Re: (Score:3)
While your steps work, you can also just focus on the desktop (by clicking the background, for example), then press ALT+F4. You will then be presented with the shutdown menu which includes the same options you cited, but without the need to log off first.
I prefer to click the task bar, then ALT+F4.
It's also useful in remote desktop when you're trying to shutdown or reboot the remote machine. Also included is Microsoft's "Windows Virtual PC" which uses remote desktop as the integration technology, and makes it difficult to shutdown or reboot the VM.
Re: (Score:3)
There's nothing quite as fast as the old school method of yanking the cord.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Short sighted (Score:5, Funny)
Now there's something you don't read every day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is the issue. Windows on a laptop should specifically ask you if you want to install updates, because when you need to grab your laptop and run, you don't want to wait for twenty minutes of updates first.
I would suggest using Hibernate instead since it powers down the machine, when you see the "I am going to delay you" indicator on the shutdown icon.
Re: (Score:2)
When talking about Windows, mostly hibernate is the correct title because sometimes hibernate is not so much hibernate but crash on attempt to end hibernation and reboot. I would be fairly cautious about attempting to hibernate part way through an update. Better to go to Windows updates and change the configuration to download updates but ask before patching.
Re: Short sighted (Score:2)
You're doing it wrong.
Hibernate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Short sighted (Score:2)
My Windows 7 laptop doesn't fragment due to hibernation. My Windows 8.1 laptop ditto.
But I'm not the one trying to use AMD drivers.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. This is the most unprofessional thing I ever saw. I had to force a shutdown in several cases on this, because I had to leave for a meeting or at the end of a meeting I had to vacate the room. Seriously, the person responsible for this does not have two brain cells to rub together.
Re: Short sighted (Score:4, Informative)
Ah, the great "you don't want to do that" solutions. As a anonymous coward I can finally say: I'm so sick of people like you. If you can't think of a real solution, then just say nothing.
- You got shot, and need to stop the bleeding. Solution: You don't want to get shot.
- Windows Vista doesn't update, how to solve it? Solution: You don't want to use Vista, and should upgrade.
(add your own)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Short sighted (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's another one of those years when MS Windows tells me it's going to automatically shut down my laptop in a minute, unless I'm looking at it at the time the dialog box pops up letting me delay the shutdown for 10 minutes or 4 hours.
Re: (Score:2)
Last 3 patches since October have all been nuisance to sysadmins. Time to look elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Last 3 patches since October have all been nuisance to sysadmins.
Ah yes, Windows "sysadmins"... Cream of the crop. Unless there isn't a GUI for it.
Is there a GUI for systemd?
Re:Short sighted (Score:4, Funny)
Careful ... you keep this up, and systemd will start to come with its own nVidia driver for the 3D-enabled admin-UI
Re: (Score:2)
I heard the new version comes with Red5 bundled to let people use the new Flash control panel.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, Windows "sysadmins"... Cream of the crop. Unless there isn't a GUI for it.
Is there a GUI for systemd?
That is just freaking precious!
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Having gone from the Linux to windows world. I'd like to refute your joke, sadly when we migrated all our servers to 2012r2 and went with server core almost half the staff had no idea how to use them. I was told to put the GUI back until I could train them in how to use powershell. :-(
Re:Short sighted (Score:5, Informative)
Though I agree with your sentiment there was an additional patch in the group (KB2553154 [microsoft.com]) that was a security update that conveniently broke ActiveX controls and macros in Excel 2013. It wasn't just one incredibly bad patch.
I pity the poor vendors and their even poorer customers whose spreadsheets suddenly stopped working on December 10th.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that this is for a version of MSWind that MS is no longer selling, one may reasonably conjecture that MS is not exerting strong efforts on quality control. This is evidence supporting that conjecture.
You can call it short sighted if you want, but to me it seems good grounds for disabling auto-update. At this point one should wait a few days to hear reports about the quality of each update.
OTOH, I'm presuming that you'll be able to update it on Friday. If this is wrong, perhaps you should just
Re: (Score:3)
Actually they are still selling it. You can buy it on brand new business machines today.
Or, maybe deliberate? (Score:2)
One may reasonably conjecture that a Microsoft employee deliberately caused problems so that people will buy new computers, with another version of Windows. If that was done at the request of top management is not known.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Short sighted (Score:5, Insightful)
That would be terrible advice. Fortunatly, nobody has suggested that. TFA suggested changing the setting to list updates for manual selection, and that's not at all bad advice. Wait a few days to see if people are screaming about horrible problems with the update, then select them manually.
That would work even better if MS actually described what the update fixes (so you could decide if it's even relevant) rather than slipping things in.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some people wait for the little red light to change their oil. That sort of person should pay someone to look after their car and computer.
Of course, that sort of person probably won't read TFA or /. and probably has no idea how to change the update settings.
Did really he say that? (Score:5, Informative)
Ah yes, one bad patch and we should all NEVER PATCH AGAIN BECAUSE THE SKY IS FALLING!
Did he actually say that?
Or did he say turn off *automatic* patching?
It seems reasonable to always be 1 week behind in patching your systems - let someone else be the lightning rod for goofs and mistakes. I know some sysadmins patch "test" systems and try things out to see if the patches break their currently-running code. They don't seem to mind a certain time lag in patching.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems reasonable to always be 1 week behind in patching your systems - let someone else be the lightning rod for goofs and mistakes. I know some sysadmins patch "test" systems and try things out to see if the patches break their currently-running code. They don't seem to mind a certain time lag in patching.
I as well as millions of other sysadmins would very much like this feature in Windows.
That way we can immediately patch some machines and test for problems and then have the others patch 1-2 weeks later. 99% of the time it will be fine, but that 1% will save a weeks worth of downtime.
WSUS doesn't really cut it in this regard and requires too much manual work for a sysadmin that already doesn't have enough time.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Short sighted (Score:5, Insightful)
How is it that you interpret disabling auto-update as meaning "NEVER PATCH AGAIN"? I took it to mean don't patch until you're confident it's safe to do so. Don't you think that's a more reasonable view?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Ah yes, one bad patch and we should all NEVER PATCH AGAIN BECAUSE THE SKY IS FALLING!
If Microsoft only put out "one" bad patch, you might have an argument.
But hey, the modern day Microsoft apologist tactic of going apeshit instead of rational discussion, and blaming the victims is noted.
And the "Capslock loaded and ready to rumble" is just adorable.
Re:Short sighted (Score:5, Funny)
THANK YOU! You just opened my eyes! I will immediately get rid of Windows and spend the next 4 weeks getting OpenBSD to somehow work on my laptop.
Re: (Score:2)
Just for general understanding, are you saying that you
1) have a strange laptop?
or
2) have a timemachine, and uninstalling Windows will cause it to send you back in time?
Re: (Score:2)
If you had any balls you would install Hurd instead...
N00b...
Re: (Score:3)
THANK YOU! You just opened my eyes! I will immediately get rid of Windows and spend the next 4 weeks getting OpenBSD to somehow work on my laptop.
You really know nothing about modern Linux do you? And if you still want to talk about ancient installs, let's talk about how well Windows 1.0 works.
Because it's the same thing. Haven't had on computer not "just work" after installing Linux, in the last few years and that includes some exotic installs like Chromebooks. or touchscreen laptops. And at this point, driver selection is better.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
(follow up from pevious)
Also I love that your solution to getting OpenBSD to work on his laptop; is to install OpenBSD and then a virtual machine host, and install windows on top of that.
So why did you get rid of windows again?
Re: (Score:3)
More like 4 minutes. OpenBSD user here and it just works(tm).
Unless you have a laptop with a USB 3 controller. Then it boots up fine, just don't expect the keyboard, mouse, or touchpad to work.
Re: (Score:3)
Lacking USB 3 support causes devices to fall back to USB 2, unless your machine has only USB 3 (like some Apple devices).
Yes, that is exactly the reason I wasn't able to install OpenBSD on my mac.
Re: (Score:3)
Usually it's a pissing Contest, but strangely enough, your "pissing context" seems to fit it better.
Re:Short sighted (Score:4, Informative)
Things "might" have gone smoother with the American forces in Europe, but they were also engaged in the Pacific conflict at the same time, and needed the shifting of forces from the ending of the European conflict to bring a conclusion to the Pacific conflict. Of course there are the nukes, but those only ended it quicker and with far less bloodshed than would have happened otherwise, even with the most optimistic forecasts. It just goes to show that fighting a war on multiple fronts is never a good idea.
Re: (Score:3)
Germany did pretty much steamroll Western Europe up to the coast, except for Spain and Portugal. Taking Britain was going to be a lot harder, and everybody knew that. The German plans to invade southern England in 1940 are positively ludicrous, and their attempts to suppress British air power caused them losses they never really had a chance to recoup.
Germany then attacked the Soviet Union, and failed in 1941, before the US had any significant impact on the war. The US didn't have an army on the Europ
200 armies for USSR, 60 for whole of west (Score:2)
Hitler deployed 200 out of his 300 armies for operation yellow - the campaign against USSR. 40 were helping Mussolini, 60 were left for the western operation of US, UK, Australia, Canada and others. Yet USSR reached Berlin before the western forces. Enough said.
Who needs root certificate updates anyway? (Score:2, Troll)
Let's just stop installing these updates, they're clearly created by Microsoft with the express intent of committing acts of malice, not to improve their software.
It uninstalled itself... (Score:5, Informative)
According to my update history they automatically uninstalled it the next day (via a new update). So the auto updates worked - no drama.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In the provided link, MS claims that one of problems with the said update is that it prevents future updates. It seems that it was not the case, luckily.
BTW, my problem with this update was that VirtualBox did not want to start the virtual machine.
Virtual Machine = Only Safe Way (Score:2)
That way you can just trash it & reload a clone if something goes wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I do, because my client is running in a VM sandbox, just like everybody else's/
Re: (Score:2)
My problem with this update was that VirtualBox did not want to start virtual machines. So running Windows inside VM solves all problems with this patch: just as you don't have to worry about AMD and Nvidia drivers, you don't have to worry about VirtualBox because it makes very little sense to run VM inside a VM.
Yes, until there is a decent snapshotting FS (Score:2)
I run plenty of alpha, beta and otherwise buggy Linux systems. But because I use snapshots in file systems, recovery from bad updates is trivial. Microsoft is stuck in the 20th century.
Malware? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think calling something "Malware" implies malice, something that's not indicated here as I see it. This is probably a case of incompetence, releasing poorly thought out, poorly written, and/or poorly tested code. Maybe we need a term for that - "bugware". (Or, for the cynics in the audience, we already have a term - "software".)
Re:Malware? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Didn't Microsoft lay off thousands of QA testers a few months back?
Re: (Score:2)
testing is generally automated, if they were using people to test the literally millions of permutations of patches, drivers, hardware, software etc you can bet there would be thousands of more issues with updates.
Re: (Score:3)
While that is true, the implication that the automation creates and maintains itself is very false.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoa. They had quality testers?
Re: (Score:2)
Whoa. They had quality testers?
Yep. Incredible, uh? =P
Re: (Score:2)
When an antivirus tool is disabled, then the presumptioon of sloppy carelessness is a bit strained. An assertion of "probable malice" isn't unreasonable. (One might, however, wonder on whose part. Was the update site hacked?)
OTOH, is sloppy carelessness is the suspected reason, then one might well doubt the policy of installing patches that are less tested than those of Debian testing. Perhaps it's better to wait a few days and monitor the response.
OTTH, updating a couple of days later after monitoring
Re: (Score:2)
Or perhaps "crapware" .. Oh wait, that describes Windows in general!
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe we need a term for that - "bugware".
I prefer "shitware". :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Terminal Windows Complexity? (Score:2)
I'm just wondering if Windows has become so complex that even MS's programmers can't keep all the gears and chains and indexers humming along w/99.9% uptime.
When are we as users going to insist on bullet proof OS's? It goes for all mainstream systems.
Seems like it time for a ground up rebuild of the OS. If not, why continue using a system with so many problems. Patch after patch after malware patch and it doesn't change.
Re: (Score:3)
Any modern OS is too complex for a single person to understand.
Windows is especially bad, given that the de facto goal is to maintain as much compatibility as humanly possible - including the antiquated Win32 API.
Starting with Windows 8.1, the tendency is more towards the Unix method of providing several versions of the same thing (much like what was done with the Visual Studio runtimes), presenting applications only the one they claim to target (or the default, which is Windows 7, IIRC). This should allow
you can have bulletproof, or the latest games (Score:2)
You can have a bullet proof OS today if that's what you really want, if that's you top priority. That means you're willing to forego the cool new features in favor of stability. It means learning an environment different from Windows, because stability is not the #1 priority in Windows.
Some of the BSDs are far more stable than Windows and more stable than the most common Linux distributions. QNX is still more stable. So you can get as much stability as you want. You won't be playing the latest games
Consumer Rights? (Score:2)
A 1990s classic joke (Score:3)
With the recent problems being encountered by Windows users all across the country, people are begin to ask themselves if windows is a virus. In response to the high demand for an answer to that question a study was done and concluded the following.
1. Viruses replicate quickly.
Windows does this.
2. Viruses use up valuable system resources, slowing down the system as they do so.
Windows does this.
3. Viruses will, from time to time, trash your hard disk.
Windows does this.
4. Viruses are usually carried, unkown to the user, along with valuable programs and systems.
Windows does that too.
5. Viruses will occasionally make the user suspect their system is too slow (see 2) and the user will buy new hardware.
Same with Windows, yet again.
Maybe Windows really is a virus.
Nope! There is a difference!
Viruses are well supported by their authors, are frequently updated, and tend to become more sophisticated as they mature. So there! Windows is not a virus.
Re: (Score:2)
I realize this was a joke, but how were viruses well supported by the authors in 1990s? The authors rarely provided contact info and their products only worked on computers running MS-DOS!
Really bad advice (Score:5, Insightful)
Several readers have pointed out that disabling automatic Windows Updates is bad advice, and while thatâ(TM)s a fair argument I have to disagree.
It is really a BAD advice. The average PC user is not an ops person. If an update bricks his PC, he will notice and can get help. If his PC is insecure, he will notice nothing and help (if ever) will be asked for much too late.
His arguments amount to one thing: avoid changes. Any change is a risk. But so is crossing the street. In the long run, a change-averse strategy will lead to worse results than the occasional botched change (exceptions apply, but those are rare). And the only way for the average user to do changes is to automate them.
Re: (Score:2)
Any change is a risk. But so is crossing the street.
I would have said, "Any change is risk. But so is not changing."
Not sure if my problem is related (Score:5, Interesting)
It non-activated dialog box wanted me to install some application to double activate it or something? I've had a tough time figuring out exactly what's up with it. The links all point to genuine microsoft.com websites, so it doesn't appear to be malware, but I'll be damned if it's not acting like malware.
Re: (Score:2)
Windows is telling you in no uncertain terms to convert as a HackInTosh!
VirtualBox (Score:2)
I had to uninstall a patch last week to get Virtualbox to work. Can't remember which one it was.
I know I was experiencing weird behavior in IE (Score:3)
Update way worse than described. (Score:3)
Pretty much anything that needed elevated privileges would fail to run even if you were running on an admin account and gave UAC permission. Even my TV recordings failed while the update was applied and at first I thought it was my video driver update that I did just before manually allowing windows update to install the patch. Because I had manually installed it, I did not automatically get the removal patch and had no idea wtf was going on until I dug through several posts about driver installation problems (that I did not have) to finally find that it was wrecking far more than just driver installation.
Forbes has no standing to complain (Score:4, Interesting)
Layoffs (Score:4)
So Microsoft starts laying off 18,000 employees in several waves starting in July this year. One of the first groups that was hit hard by layoffs was QA (mostly contract workers so they are easy to let go.) Within that, the QA department responsible for testing OS security patches was hit the hardest...
So now we are having a bunch of problems with botched updates that weren't tested sufficiently, go figure!
Re: (Score:2)
Nice. But as the customers are locked-in anyways, why would they care?
language matters (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a question about that. I noticed that MS did an update, and had already updated my AMD drivers to Omega a few days ago. I haven't noticed any problems.
Is this the kind of problem patch that MS will fix in a subsequent patch or do I have to go uninstall the latest patch even though I haven't experienced any problems yet?
Re: (Score:2)
This particular patch has actually already been fixed and superseded. It should just fix itself automagically.
Re: (Score:2)
So, what's the big deal then?
Re: (Score:3)
You could at least *try* to make the joke intelligent, instead of repeating a tired one...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:the real story (Score:4, Insightful)
the problem that I have with this isn't this particular patch, but the pattern.
Microsoft over the last 6 months have not had a patch cycle that didn't have major widespread issues with a patch that was eventually recalled. The last time they had problems this bad was sometime around 2002-2003, and back then they claimed that they changed their testing criteria to prevent major patch issues from happening, And it worked for a good while. At least I only had to worry about 1-2 bad patches a year at most.
This patch botch, however, takes the cake. There is absolutely no way this patch should have been able to pass a competent Q/A test. Every single windows 7 machine that got this patch through our test systems (which is about 100 PC's spread across multiple vendors and OS images) popped up a "you are a conterfeit victim" message within 24 hours of receiving the patch. There is no way they couldn't have run into this unless they are doing short term checks for patch related issues.
"The Patch Installed without crashing" is Not Good enough Q/A when you are rolling out a patch to millions of potential customers. Someone in MS Q/A Needs to get fired over these issues before it causes more damage (IE: People taking Forbes stupid advice, disabling critical updates and getting infected by some cryptovirus that wipes out all of their company files that could have been prevented by a patch install.)