[There's a reason that Yoda is the unofficial mascot of SBS. Size indeed matters not.] Don't approve KB917013 - THE OFFICIAL BLOG OF THE SBS "DIVA"
Thursday, October 25, 2007 9:21 AM bradley

Don't approve KB917013

 

http://www.theregister.com/2007/10/25/windows_update_snafu/


      Resource-hogging search app sprung on reluctant admins

By Dan Goodin
<http://forms.theregister.co.uk/mail_author/?story_url=/2007/10/25/windows_update_snafu/>
Published Thursday 25th October 2007 01:04 GMT

Something seems to have gone horribly wrong in an untold number of IT
departments on Wednesday after Microsoft installed a resource-hogging
search application on machines company-wide, even though administrators
had configured systems not to use the program.

"The admins at my place were in a flap this morning because Windows
Desktop Search 3.01 had suddenly started installing itself on desktops
throughout the company," a /Reg/ reader by the name of Rob informs us.
"The trouble is that once installed, the indexer kicks in and slows the
machines down."

The blogosphere is buzzing with similar reports, as evidenced by
postings here
<http://sadjadbp.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!21F12BB61B822DFA!263.entry>,
here <http://dblume.livejournal.com/78836.html> and here
<http://www.davidarno.org/2007/10/24/microsoft-update-strikes-again/>.

"I'm /slighly/ pissed of [sic] at M$ right now," an admin in charge of
3,000 PCs wrote in a comment to the first aforementioned link. "All the
clients have slowed to a crawl, and the file servers are having problems
with the load."

A Microsoft spokeswoman said she was looking in to the reports.

According to /Reg/ tipster Rob, Window Server Update Services
<http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/wsus/default.aspx> forced Windows
Desktop Services 3.01 on the fleet of machines even though admins had
configured their system to install updates only for existing programs
and the search program wasn't installed on any machines (well, until
then, anyway).

It's been a rough several weeks for managers running Microsoft's auto
update services. Last month, bloggers disclosed the existence of a
Windows patch that silently and automatically installed itself
<http://www.theregister.com/2007/09/14/microsoft_dispels_stealth_update_rumors/>
even on Machines configured not to install updates. Critics cried foul
on the principle that users should have absolute control over their
machines. They also argued that the stealth update could hamper
compliance requirements.

Microsoft said the patch was installed on machines only to make sure
Windows Update worked properly in the future. Managers promised to be
more transparent in the future.

The revelation that Microsoft is pushing yet more installations not
explicitly agreed to by administrators is not likely to sit well with
this same vocal contingent. Redmond may want to don the asbestos suits
now. ®
Filed under:

# re: Don't approve KB917013

Thursday, October 25, 2007 11:56 AM by Eric Louie

If you've been affected, the Windows Desktop Search update can be uninstalled in Add/Remove Programs, and I'm certain that a script on the server could also remove it from any affected domain-attached workstation client.  Prevention of a repeat download may not be as easy, however.

# re: Don't approve KB917013

Thursday, October 25, 2007 1:17 PM by sproket90

hmmm... that kind of goes against the mantra of   patch patch patch...

once again MS makes Admin look like idiots in the eyes of their customers....  

# re: Don't approve KB917013

Thursday, October 25, 2007 4:15 PM by Tony

And if there is one thing I absolutely don't want Microsoft doing at all is to install any search tools whatsover!

Whoever has installed and uses Vista knows what I mean when I say that Microsoft <does not> know how to write search applications anymore, does not understand the consequences of uncontrolled indexing and somehow seems to have completely ignored, forgotten or even worse maybe doesn't care about running such processes at lower priority levels so become background services.

# re: Don't approve KB917013

Thursday, October 25, 2007 5:21 PM by Boon Tee

Too late! Is there a way to take it back before client PCs install it?

# re: Don't approve KB917013

Thursday, October 25, 2007 6:55 PM by Gary Karasik

It surprises me that people are surprised to find Microsoft acting like Microsoft. You know that old tale about the snake that offers to carry the frog across the river, then in the middle of the river, prepares to eat the frog? The frog says, "But you promised not to eat me." The snake says, "Yes, I know, but I'm a snake."

The US let them off the hook on the anti-trust suit. The EU didn't.

The real problem in my view is not so much that Microsoft will install software on our systems without our knowledge. The real problem is that they CAN install things on our system without our knowledge. This then is the real reason they don't provide a truly secure OS. If they did, then they'd be locked out too.

GaryK

# re: Don't approve KB917013

Thursday, October 25, 2007 10:36 PM by Tron

I'm no attorney; but, to me, this seems to break Florida statutes 815.xx "Offenses against Intellectual Property".

Fla. Stat. 815.04 Offenses against Intellectual Property

Whoever willfully, knowingly, and without authorization modifies data, programs, or supporting documentation residing or existing internal or external to a computer, computer system, or computer network commits an offense against intellectual property.

Fla. Stat. 815.05 Offenses against Computer Equipment or Supplies

Whoever willfully, knowingly, and without authorization modifies equipment or supplies used or intended to be used in a computer, computer system, or computer network commits an offense against computer equipment or supplies.

Fla. Stat. 815.06 Offenses against Computer Users

Whoever willfully, knowingly, and without authorization accesses or causes to be accessed any computer, computer system, or computer network; or whoever willfully, knowingly, and without authorization denies or causes the denial of computer system services to an authorized user of such computer system services, which, in whole or part, is owned by, under contract to, or operated for, on behalf of, or in conjunction with another commits an offense against computer users.

# re: Don't approve KB917013

Friday, October 26, 2007 5:45 AM by TK

Microsoft installing software that is detrimental to the operation of a private computer system in ANY way without implied or explicit consent smacks of being in breach of Section 3 of the British Computer Misuse Act 1990

www.legislation.gov.uk/.../ukpga_19900018_en_1

Any large corporation in the UK that has been significantly affected by this assult on their network care to press charges and apply for extradition of the MS managers that ordered this assult on our servers?

# re: Don't approve KB917013

Monday, October 29, 2007 7:21 PM by Chris Knight

What's the problem?

It's classified as an "Update", not a "Security Update" or a "Critical Update". Which means it should not be Auto-approved in WSUS

Honestly, if you auto-approve anything other than Critical and Security Updates, then expect nonsense like this on a regular basis. Updates need testing before deploying, just like Service Packs.

# re: Don't approve KB917013

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 10:10 AM by Bruce M

re: Chris Knight

The problem was that it showed up on users desktops like a normal deployment from our WSUS (when it was not approved in WSUS), therefore users installed it, bringing Exchange to a near halt while it indexed the Public Folders....