Message-ID: <b7bc1b1f040821165676274e7c@mail.gmail.com>
From: uberguidoz at gmail.com (Über GuidoZ)
Subject: Windows Update

Umm, hold on a sec here... 

(snip from "James Tucker"):
> There really should be no reason why you would want to disable the
> Automatic Updates service anyway, unless you are rolling out updates
> using a centralised distribution system, in which case you would not
>need it anyway.

I believe you are missing one fundamental point: SPs and updates are
notorious for breaking something else. (Especially from Microsoft.)
Granted, if fixing a security weakness breaks something you're using,
then that aspect could have been written better. However, that still
doesn't fix it when an entire business network goes down and YOU are
the one responsible. I do not allow ANY automatic updates (except for
virus definitions) to run on ANY networks I am in charge of. I take
the time (like every good sysadmin should) to look over each update
before applying it so I know three things:

1. What it's fixing/patching
2. Why it's fixing/patching it
3. What will be the end result of the fix/patch

If you would simply allow updates and SPs to have free reign over your
system(s) without taking any time to look over those updates, you're
going to be one busy and irritated sysadmin. That is, if you still
have a job after a little bit.

~G

P.S. Don't take my word for it. Look here:
 - http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/08/12/HNdisablesp2_1.html
 - http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;1183008015;fp;2;fpid;1
 - http://www.integratedmar.com/ecl-usa/story.cfm?item=18619
 - http://www.vnunet.com/news/1157279
 - Or, find the other 200+ articles by searching Google News
    for "disable automatic update sp2"  =)

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 18:51:40 -0300, James Tucker <jftucker@...il.com> wrote:
> Here I found that I can have BITS and Automatic Updates in "manual",
> Windows Update works fine here. It may be a good idea to refresh the
> MMC console page, as you will probably find that at time the service
> had shut down if and when BITS was stopped prematurely (i.e. when it
> was in use).
> 
> There really should be no reason why you would want to disable the
> Automatic Updates service anyway, unless you are rolling out updates
> using a centralised distribution system, in which case you would not
> need it anyway.
> 
> If you are worried about system resources, you should look into how
> much the service really uses; the effect is negligable, in fact there
> is more impact if you select (scroll over) a large number of
> application shortcuts (due to the caching system) than if you leave
> Automatic Updates on. If you are worried about your privacy and you
> dont believe that the data sent back and forth has not been checked
> before, then you surely dont want to run Windows Updates ever. If you
> want to cull some real system resources and have not already done so,
> turn the Help and Support service to manual, that will save ~30mb on
> boot, up until the first use of XP help; this will stop help links
> from programs from forwarding to the correct page, until the service
> has loaded once.
> 
> As for worry over using bandwidth on your internet service, again, you
> want to check this out as its a trickle service, not a flood. BITS
> does not stand for Bloody Idiots Trashing Service; it means what it
> says on the tin.
> 
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:30:22 -0700, David Vincent
> 
> 
> <support@...epdeprived.ca> wrote:
> > joe wrote:
> >
> > >Yep, this is how it works now.
> > >
> > >You control whether Windows Update is updating or not via the security panel
> > >in the control panel applets (wscui.cpl).
> > >
> > >
> > To eb complete, I should have mentioned I have Automatic Updates turned
> > off in the control panel.  I also had the service disabled before
> > applying SP2 and venturing to Windows Update v5.
> >
> > >Of course if you aren't using automatic update you could always disable the
> > >service and just reenable when you go to do the update, or don't use windows
> > >update at all and just pull the downloads separately. We are talking about a
> > >single command line to reenable that service
> > >
> > >
> > Yep.
> >
> > >Is it a pain? Yes, for those who like to run minimal services. Is it a
> > >security issue or life threatening, probably not.
> > >
> > >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > -d
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> > Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
> 


-- 
Peace. ~G

Powered by blists - more mailing lists