F**k these people.
Windows 10 will now automatically download and install on PCs
Microsoft said it would push Windows 10 upgrades onto people's PCs much harder this year – and Redmond has been true to its word. From Monday, Windows Update will start making the upgrade to version 10 of the operating system a recommended update, rather than an optional one, a spokesperson for the software giant confirmed. …
COMMENTS
-
-
Tuesday 2nd February 2016 12:57 GMT Anonymous Coward
>> Today's move does mean you can expect to get a lot more technical support calls from friends and family who don't know what's going on
And then far fewer calls from those who just upgrade as Windows 10 is in many ways a better product.
To get people off from older OSs onto more modern and secure versions like Windows 10 is good for all of us.
-
-
Tuesday 2nd February 2016 14:19 GMT Anonymous Coward
>> Please explain your implication that a modern OS is more secure than an older one.
See some info https://blogs.windows.com/business/2014/10/22/windows-10-security-and-identity-protection-for-the-modern-world/
and if that's not enough then see more info https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/mt601297(v=vs.85).aspx
-
Tuesday 2nd February 2016 14:32 GMT Preston Munchensonton
See some info https://blogs.windows.com/business/2014/10/22/windows-10-security-and-identity-protection-for-the-modern-world/
and if that's not enough then see more info https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/mt601297(v=vs.85).aspx
Since when would anyone take security advice from Microsoft, let alone from their marketing fluff for Windows 10?
Total fail.
-
-
-
Tuesday 2nd February 2016 17:58 GMT John O'Grady
I'd rather take "known" vulnerabilities over "We were going to tell you about how easy it was to root your laptop, but we needed that 8 months to let the exploits get well used before we fixed it and then told you."
Also, screw anyone that ever says to trust Microsoft. Take it from someone who has dealt with them since Windows 2.0, they can never be trusted. Can you say "Threshold"?:
-
Tuesday 2nd February 2016 20:15 GMT bombastic bob
"OS-X - now well over 2,000 known vulnerabilities, Linux kernel now on well over 1,300"
I saw someone over on the 'answers' Microsoft forum that was trying to spread FUD like this, a while back. Words like 'sycophant', 'shill', and 'fanboi' come to mind.
And, _THOSE_ claims are just NOT true. Did they come from HERE, by any chance?
http://www.gfi.com/blog/most-vulnerable-operating-systems-and-applications-in-2014/
I question the validity of pretty much EVERYTHING that this guy is saying. One comment in particular pretty much sums up why:
"This article insults my intelligence at the highest level! What versions of Linux and OS X are you referring to, and why is Windows broken out by version"
lies, DANG lies, and statistics, indeed.
-
Wednesday 3rd February 2016 10:18 GMT Anonymous Coward
"And, _THOSE_ claims are just NOT true."
Yes they are. The OS-X total is from Secunia. The Linux total is from the NVD:
https://www.cvedetails.com/vendor/33/Linux.html
Here is the OS-X number from the NVD (also over 1300) - lower than Secunia but still higher than any Microsoft product:
http://www.cvedetails.com/product/156/Apple-Mac-Os-X.html?vendor_id=49
-
-
Tuesday 2nd February 2016 23:57 GMT harmjschoonhoven
Re: OS-X and Linux vulnerabilities
Admittedly a little out of date: Jeffrey Carr, Inside Cyber Warfare (2010) page 193 Kaspersky figures on malware distribution by OS
Linux: total 1898, 88 trojans
FreeBSD: total 43, 0 trojans
SunOs/Solaris: total 119, 3 trojans
Unix: total 212, 3 trojans
OSX: total 48, 11 trojans
Windows: total 2247659, 1232798 trojans
-
Wednesday 3rd February 2016 02:16 GMT Stretch
Re: OS-X and Linux vulnerabilities
https://securelist.com/analysis/kaspersky-security-bulletin/68010/kaspersky-security-bulletin-2014-overall-statistics-for-2014/
"Kaspersky Lab experts detected 1,499 new malicious programs for Mac OS X, 200 samples more than in the previous year."
https://usa.kaspersky.com/internet-security-center/threats/mac#.VrFiubKLS9J
"Compared with figures for 2010, the number of signatures created annually has increased by a factor of six."
I am not convinced the situation is the same or as flattering to OSX anymore.
-
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 2nd February 2016 21:16 GMT Ken Hagan
"Please explain your implication that a modern OS is more secure than an older one."
I like a challenge. I'll bite.
First off, the only relevant comparison is whether Win10 is more secure than Win7, 8 or 8.1, because the upgrade doesn't apply to any other.
Secondly, it is clear from the last few months that the only way to be sure that you don't wake up one morning to the Win10 "installing" screen is to switch off automatic updates, even if they are marked as purely "security" ones. Therefore, the comparison is between "Win10 which is getting patched" or "Win7/8/8.1 which is not getting patched".
Since every patch that you don't apply is a new zero day generously donated by Microsoft to the bag guys, the comparison may be fairly restated as "Win10 which MS are doing their level best to keep secure" or "Win7/8/8.1 which MS are doing their level best to turn into a stinking pile of zombie-fied porn server".
So, which is more secure? Hmmm ... actually you're right. That's not obvious.
-
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Tuesday 2nd February 2016 18:54 GMT Michael Habel
To get people off from older OSs onto more modern and secure versions like Windows 10 is good for all of us.
>Implying that Windows 7 is somehow insecure than Win X? Sans the creepy data slurping telemetry updates that MicroSoft will pitch at you, behind your back, and are now flatly outright refusing to disclose. (e.g. even more creepy sanctiond malware.)'Cause they know that such disclosure would be the death of such updates. (i.e. anyone with a brain would avoid said updade like the plaque.)
Nope its not a question of being better secured, it's a question of trust, and MicroSoft has lost mine. It was one thing to implement this stuff in Win X. There was absolutely no need to back port it to Windows 7. And is a genuine disservice to those that bought it as Ultimate at retail.
So they can go fsck them selves!
-
-
Wednesday 3rd February 2016 10:12 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: MS security??? LOL
"MS security - still as bad as 2005... LOL"
Funny you should mention 2005 - that was 3 years after Bill Gates email on trustworthy computing - and ever since 2005, every year without fail, Windows has had fewer vulnerabilities that were on average fixed faster than OS-X and enterprise Linux (Redhat and SUSE).
-
-
-
Wednesday 3rd February 2016 00:41 GMT rtb61
How can an operating system with a build in key logger ever be considered more secure. In fact everything required to turn your computer into a privacy invasive bot controlled by someone else is built right into the OS. Don't need to install any trojan ware at all under Windows anal probe 10, you just need to break in once, redirect the links and you are done.
The whole idea is utter insanity and a solid indication that it is well and truly beyond time to abandon doing any business at all with M$.
-
-
Tuesday 2nd February 2016 19:42 GMT Anonymous Coward
Sorry:
Had to hijack:
Lilipution Snot Weasel...
ROFL...
I SO want that error as an .SCR I can plant on some of the numpties I deal with to prove that users DO just click on anything because as sure is eggs is eggs, they will flat out deny that THEY have given crapware.exe permission to install....
** I did have a program that put up fake, meaningless error messages but it was back in the days of win98.
-
-
Tuesday 2nd February 2016 02:22 GMT MrDamage
Sue 'em
Corporate theft (of both data allowance and electricity), Spam, computer misuse act, and whatever else a technically savvy lawyer can come up with.
Or just find a MS exec, tie himm down in the middle of a pasture, and force-feed him/her a nice, fresh, steaming pile of cowshit to see how they like being treated the way they treat us.
-
-
Tuesday 2nd February 2016 10:02 GMT MrDamage
Re: Sue 'em
Actually, being Australian, I can sue them.
As I have mentioned before in other threads, part of our consumer laws state all terms and conditions MUST be presented to the consumer prior to the point of purchase. In other words, since they stopped printing the EULA on the outside of the box, the EULA is completely invalid.
Then there is the fact they changed the T&Cs between the time of purchase, and now means that once again, the EULA is invalid, as a contract cannot be binding if the terms of it change without both parties consent. Being forced to accept an updated EULA in order to receive security updates to an operating system is extortion, and again, illegal.
We may pay higher prices for our kit here in Oz, but at least we've got some decent protections from asshat companies.
-
Tuesday 2nd February 2016 13:09 GMT Salts
Re: Sue 'em
@Mr Damage
Consumer wise same in the UK, unless it is against your statutory rights, basically at point of sale you and the retailer enter into a contract and all terms and conditions that need to be adhered to must be clearly displayed at that point, not 10 meters back on a wall in white text on a white background or sealed in a box, otherwise your statutory rights apply and anything else you can get away with.
English contract law, as used by most countries, even the old colonies :-)
As an aside always wondered about these "No contract" terms the local Gym, TV on demand, Mobile operator etc. go on about(and then list a pile of conditions), because as far as I am aware everything in the UK that is sold to a consumer is under contract and to deny it would be against the law, wouldn't it? After all "No Contract" means none, zilch F*** all, or is it like "Unlimited Broadband"!
-
Wednesday 3rd February 2016 08:12 GMT Alfie Noakes
@Salts (Re: Sue 'em )
Re: "Consumer wise same in the UK, unless it is against your statutory rights, basically at point of sale you and the retailer enter into a contract and all terms and conditions that need to be adhered to must be clearly displayed at that point, not 10 meters back on a wall in white text on a white background or sealed in a box, otherwise your statutory rights apply and anything else you can get away with."
...and Microsoft did _just_ that for me this morning!
Booting my (work) PC i received a popup dialogue saying that i could not continue unless i *accept* a licence agreement. The popup did not say what program or application it was from, and the licence agreement link said...
----
PLEASE NOTE: Your use of this software is subject to the terms and conditions of the license agreement by which you acquired this software. For instance, if you are:
• a volume license customer, use of this software is subject to your volume license agreement.
• a MSDN customer, use of this software is subject to the MSDN agreement.
You may not use this software if you have not validly acquired a license for the software from Microsoft or its licensed distributors.
EULAID:O15_RTM_VL.1_RTM_EN
----
...and that was it.
The Vogons were nothing but fluffy kittens compared to Microsoft!
mb
-
-
-
Tuesday 2nd February 2016 11:35 GMT Jess
Re: you agreed to the terms and conditions
I'm sure the T&C are also written in such a way that they would protect Microsoft if they had to do anything under instruction from the NSA.
It would also be interesting to know if the legal protection from hidden T&C, that exist in some regions, still apply after agreeing to the new T&Cs of the first update.
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 2nd February 2016 12:03 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: They own you.
You either a troll or very inexperienced user. Let me show you how you can manage those simple updates in Ubuntu (feel free to use this link below):
http://i.imgur.com/meGSt7X.png
So it took me 4 clicks to manage that. Now I dare you to show me you can do the very same in Windows 10 :)
I hope you have learned something today.
Regards.
-
Tuesday 2nd February 2016 14:02 GMT fredbear5150
Re: They own you.
So don't use Ubuntu either. There are plenty of other Linux distros that don't enforce updates on you and whilst I don't use Ubuntu, I suspect there's an option somewhere to turn off automatic updates.
If anything, you're an idiot if you believe any system update makes you more secure, in most cases it does not. The majority of people connecting to the Internet these days do so through NAT (Network Address Translation) routers that, by default, act as firewalls to the Internet anyway.
Most malware and viruses are spread because a clueless user has unwittingly clicked a malicious link or installed a bit of dodgy software, there are no OS updates that fix ignorance or stupidity.
-
-
-