Windows Update: A single point of failure for the world's economy?

[iago]

http://www.computerbytesman.com/security/windowsupdate.htm

Just think -- if MS sent out a bad update (malicious employee? malware infection?) they could hose the world!

The mitigation is, in my opinion, that a lot of bigger companies (the government I work for for sure) tests each patch before deploying. But it could still be timebombed or something!

[Warrior]

http://www.computerbytesman.com/security/windowsupdate.htm

Just think -- if MS sent out a bad update (malicious employee? malware infection?) they could hose the world!

The mitigation is, in my opinion, that a lot of bigger companies (the government I work for for sure) tests each patch before deploying. But it could still be timebombed or something!

I stopped reading at:
"exploited by a disgruntled Microsoft employee"

These people need to read about QA and move on. What, do they sit around all day writing up these silly scenarios so they can put out a meaningless article?

Here's a new an interesting idea, why not turn off the Automatic Updates if you're a big company? Problem solved.

The majority of users will be running Windows Vista in the very near future, which has a lot of added protection against malware and has a great security track record.

In any case, let's take an example of Sony's recent 2.40 patch for their Playstation3, it bricked a lot of PS3s. Did this mean the end of the world? No it simply meant they put out a corrective patch.

Let's take another example of Windows Vista SP1 being shipped with an endless reboot bugs that occured on Frankenstein OEM PCs which had misconfiguration out of the box. What happened? The installs were reverted and the update was pulled for their specific hardware configuration.

In short, there's an inherent and obvious risk associated with Automatic Updates. However, there's an even bigger risk with assuming the majority of users may check for updates by themselves, this has been consistently shown to not be the case.

[iago]

I stopped reading at:
"exploited by a disgruntled Microsoft employee"

You shouldn't have. Somebody with malicious intent who's clever enough could probably sneak code past a lot of code review.

These people need to read about QA and move on. What, do they sit around all day writing up these silly scenarios so they can put out a meaningless article?
[/quote]

Here's a new an interesting idea, why not turn off the Automatic Updates if you're a big company? Problem solved.

As I said, most companies do.

The majority of users will be running Windows Vista in the very near future, which has a lot of added protection against malware and has a great security track record.

No relevance

In any case, let's take an example of Sony's recent 2.40 patch for their Playstation3, it bricked a lot of PS3s. Did this mean the end of the world? No it simply meant they put out a corrective patch.

Great, the world's economy isnt run by PS3s.

[Lead]

http://www.computerbytesman.com/security/windowsupdate.htm

Just think -- if MS sent out a bad update (malicious employee? malware infection?) they could hose the world!

The mitigation is, in my opinion, that a lot of bigger companies (the government I work for for sure) tests each patch before deploying. But it could still be timebombed or something!

I stopped reading at:
"exploited by a disgruntled Microsoft employee"

These people need to read about QA and move on. What, do they sit around all day writing up these silly scenarios so they can put out a meaningless article?

Here's a new an interesting idea, why not turn off the Automatic Updates if you're a big company? Problem solved.

The majority of users will be running Windows Vista in the very near future, which has a lot of added protection against malware and has a great security track record.

In any case, let's take an example of Sony's recent 2.40 patch for their Playstation3, it bricked a lot of PS3s. Did this mean the end of the world? No it simply meant they put out a corrective patch.

Let's take another example of Windows Vista SP1 being shipped with an endless reboot bugs that occured on Frankenstein OEM PCs which had misconfiguration out of the box. What happened? The installs were reverted and the update was pulled for their specific hardware configuration.

In short, there's an inherent and obvious risk associated with Automatic Updates. However, there's an even bigger risk with assuming the majority of users may check for updates by themselves, this has been consistently shown to not be the case.

Just wondering, I haven't even paid enough attention to this -- Is the automatic updates on by default in Windows Vista, or do they give you the option to turn them on while you are installing / booting the machine for the first time?

[Warrior]

Here's a new an interesting idea, why not turn off the Automatic Updates if you're a big company? Problem solved.

As I said, most companies do.

Then tell me how it's "a single point of failure for the world's economy?"
Sensationalist title.

No relevance

Care to explain how? Windows Vista (and it's security enhancements) form the basis of all Windows Operating systems going forward.
Server 2008 is already out with these core improvements.

In any case, let's take an example of Sony's recent 2.40 patch for their Playstation3, it bricked a lot of PS3s. Did this mean the end of the world? No it simply meant they put out a corrective patch.

Great, the world's economy isnt run by PS3s.

And? It's an example of how quickly such issues can be corrected in the event that they happen to slip through the cracks.
Guess what, it has not happened in the years Windows Update has been up.

You know what else CAN happen? Someone could sneak malicious code to the targeting system of long range missiles, or we can get hit by an asteroid, or an alien invasion can happen, or .. <Insert Plot to a Sci Fi Movie Here>

Unless there is credible evidence that these mechanisms are even somewhat insecure, it's all speculation.

Really, this entire article is just looking for attention. How about I help you pick the next thread to post. How about something like "The sky is blue, worlds economy in peril"?

[iago]

Just wondering, I haven't even paid enough attention to this -- Is the automatic updates on by default in Windows Vista, or do they give you the option to turn them on while you are installing / booting the machine for the first time?

It's not enabled by default, but it pops up and asks you to enable it (I think).

[Warrior]

Just wondering, I haven't even paid enough attention to this -- Is the automatic updates on by default in Windows Vista, or do they give you the option to turn them on while you are installing / booting the machine for the first time?

It's not enabled by default, but it pops up and asks you to enable it (I think).

Windows Vista has automatic updates for critical patches, anything else is listed as recommended and you're notified.

[iago]

Then tell me how it's "a single point of failure for the world's economy?"
Sensationalist title.

"Most" was the wrong word. I should have said many companies wait. Many companies don't, though.

It may be sensationalist, but a malicious/dangerous patch, especially time bombed (so it looks fine in testing) could disrupt a huge part of the world.

This isn't saying anything against Microsoft at all, I don't think, it's just a fact of life. Microsoft's done a good job with patching, and it's rare that they blow things up. Considering the multitude of configurations/software, that's impressive.

Care to explain how? Windows Vista (and it's security enhancements) form the basis of all Windows Operating systems going forward.
Server 2008 is already out with these core improvements.

That has nothing to do with a malicious/broken patch taking down machines, though. The topic isn't whether or not Vista or 2k8 are any good, that's beyond the scope of all this.

And? It's an example of how quickly such issues can be corrected in the event that they happen to slip through the cracks.
Guess what, it has not happened in the years Windows Update has been up.

You know what else CAN happen? Someone could sneak malicious code to the targeting system of long range missiles, or we can get hit by an asteroid, or an alien invasion can happen, or .. <Insert Plot to a Sci Fi Movie Here>

Those aren't in the hands of a few individuals. This is more about the whole world trusting a single company with their most critical data, not about a random occurrence.

[Warrior]

That has nothing to do with a malicious/broken patch taking down machines, though. The topic isn't whether or not Vista or 2k8 are any good, that's beyond the scope of all this.

It really depends, a patch can patch anything from a regular application to a user level system component in Vista. That's exactly where UAC and the other hardened features security-wise would come into play to mitigate things significantly. I believe the system (especially in kernel ) patches are dealt with even more scrutiny and probably widely tested on Connect first.

Those aren't in the hands of a few individuals. This is more about the whole world trusting a single company with their most critical data, not about a random occurrence.

The point I'm trying to make is that, a lot of bad things can happen. Sure it's fine to worry about it, but uless there's really conclusive evidence that it can happen -- outside of the norm. speculation then perhaps there's a story. Anything else I'd classify as fear mongering.

The benefits of Automatic Updates FAR outweigh the (very small) potential for damage, not so much in businesses where patches are usually rolled out carefully -- but in the residential context and it could very well scare people into turning Automatic Updates off.

[iago]

It really depends, a patch can patch anything from a regular application to a user level system component in Vista. That's exactly where UAC and the other hardened features security-wise would come into play to mitigate things significantly. I believe the system (especially in kernel ) patches are dealt with even more scrutiny and probably widely tested on Connect first.

I'm sure it helps, but it'll never be a guarantee. Reminds me of that contest where people write malicious programs that don't look malicious (anybody remember what it's called?)

The point I'm trying to make is that, a lot of bad things can happen. Sure it's fine to worry about it, but uless there's really conclusive evidence that it can happen -- outside of the norm. speculation then perhaps there's a story. Anything else I'd classify as fear mongering.

I don't think there is a need for evidence. It is pretty self evident that it CAN happen, albeit with difficulty. That's the whole point of saying "single point of failure". It's a good reason to verify patches in your environment before rolling them out.

The benefits of Automatic Updates FAR outweigh the (very small) potential for damage, not so much in businesses where patches are usually rolled out carefully -- but in the residential context and it could very well scare people into turning Automatic Updates off.

Agreed. But it's something people, especially businesses, should think about.

[Lead]

The benefits of Automatic Updates FAR outweigh the (very small) potential for damage, not so much in businesses where patches are usually rolled out carefully -- but in the residential context and it could very well scare people into turning Automatic Updates off.

Agreed. But it's something people, especially businesses, should think about.

Even so the updates are typically hand picked and tested before deployment there are still users in a company that will go out themselves and update their computers, it happens everyday where I work. But then again that gets into where you need to setup policies on the workstations that limits the user on what he/she can do. I know the policies on our computers, particularly in our office, is set up to where everyone is tossed into the administrator group of their PC before the End User Computing group sets up their PC at their office / cubicle. This isn't the case at our other offices, but was noted in our last outbreak of a nasty worm that spread across our WAN.

[Joe]

In any case, let's take an example of Sony's recent 2.40 patch for their Playstation3, it bricked a lot of PS3s. Did this mean the end of the world? No it simply meant they put out a corrective patch.

It was news to me that corrective patches unbricked things.

[Camel]

These people need to read about QA and move on. What, do they sit around all day writing up these silly scenarios so they can put out a meaningless article?

If Microsoft's QA department is anything like my company's, you can be sure they'll miss everything, and burn all the company's money while doing it.

[rabbit]

In any case, let's take an example of Sony's recent 2.40 patch for their Playstation3, it bricked a lot of PS3s. Did this mean the end of the world? No it simply meant they put out a corrective patch.

It was news to me that corrective patches unbricked things.

They do...when you send your console to Sony so they can fix it.  Also, the 2.41 patch was a fixed version of the 2.40 patch for people that had not yet installed 2.40.

[Warrior]

In any case, let's take an example of Sony's recent 2.40 patch for their Playstation3, it bricked a lot of PS3s. Did this mean the end of the world? No it simply meant they put out a corrective patch.

It was news to me that corrective patches unbricked things.

Most things are news to you.