[Silhouette]

Seriously folks, turn on auto-updates.

I'll add my voice against this, if you have enough technical knowledge to check more carefully. I too have seen numerous occasions where something installed via Windows Update has taken out a machine and required significant action to restore it to normal functionality. My personal policy has long been security updates only, and even then I tend to do a quick web search before letting them install, which has saved me from the odd howler in the past.

On the other hand, the number of times I have seen a PC rendered inoperable or compromised because it didn't install a Windows update within 24 hours of the update being available is zero. Even if the PC is just a simple home machine, there's probably still at least some sort of firewall/router between it and the public internet, and just about any device like that is going to block unsolicited incoming traffic by default these days. To get compromised within that time frame you'd likely have to actively open something or visit somewhere that included an exploit for a new vulnerability, and while that is always a risk even on a fully patched system, it's not a big one for most people.

[JupiterMoon]

I guess you trust every website you visit then? And the ad networks used by the sites you visit...

[Silhouette]

Approximately nothing installed via Windows Update will protect most people from most threats they might find on web sites.

It's far more important to keep your browser and plug-ins updated to guard against those threats. Personally I also block almost all ads and other third party content, primarily on security and privacy grounds, which also significantly reduces the risk of running into malware while browsing.

If IE or Edge is your browser of choice then of course updates for those are going to be a priority for the same reasons. But even then, if someone has managed to compromise sites like Google's or Microsoft's so you can't even do a ten second web search before installing a patch without getting hit by an exploit that patch would have blocked, we're all in pretty big trouble anyway.

[pizzeys]

> Approximately nothing installed via Windows Update will protect most people from most threats they might find on web sites.

What about all the browser sandbox escapes that rely on kernel vulns?

[CamperBob2]

Those are very rare. When they appear, there's inevitably enough panic and publicity to attract my attention, at which point I can evaluate and install the update myself when/if appropriate.

Fool me once, there won't be a second time, and that means you get to pull something like "UPGRADE TO WINDOWS 10 NOW!!!11!!" on me exactly once. Auto-updates are now turned off on my Windows 7 box, and they will remain that way.

[JupiterMoon]

The problem with this is that you are starting to treat the OS creator as hostile. This is not a good situation to be in. Microsoft has the equivalent of root on all windows machines so it is difficult to treat them as hostile. They could roll out an upgrade tomorrow that incorporated a critical kernel security update together with non-turnable off automatic updates and you would have to accept the patch or remain vulnerable. There are some that would argue that Windows 10 home editions are exactly this...

Basically in the medium to long term if you regard your OS creator as a potential threat you have very little option but to change OS...

[CamperBob2]

Correct.

This is why fucking with Windows Update should have been the very last thing anyone at Microsoft would ever have wanted to do... or the very last thing they ever did do just before Security escorted them out to the parking lot.

[Silhouette]

The problem with this is that you are starting to treat the OS creator as hostile. This is not a good situation to be in.

No it isn't, but when they demonstrably are hostile to a degree, as with Microsoft's recent behaviour, that treatment is justified all the same.

It's important to separate updates that fix defects in the original product (security patches, bug fixes) from other updates that simply change the behaviour. The reason it's important is that from a legal point of view, there are often implied expectations of fitness for purpose and adequate quality when you buy something.

Software companies have for some time enjoyed a cosy position. For one thing, those kinds of rules have often not been enforced rigorously, partly because as long as the software companies were putting out bug fixes before large scale damage was done it has been pragmatic to let them carry on. Also, the law has often lagged the technology, with various loopholes meaning the same consumer protections that apply to physical products haven't always applied to digital ones and extra rights in digital products have been very rare.

However, the laws in a lot of places have been starting to catch up, just as modern trends in software have been pushing towards effectively forced updates. It would be a brave software company that rocked the boat by limiting access to security patches or other essential bug fixes in their push to get everyone upgrading all the time, though. The consequences if they push too far and the consumer protection authorities and/or business lawyers start to challenge them seriously could be extremely expensive.

Basically in the medium to long term if you regard your OS creator as a potential threat you have very little option but to change OS.

Unfortunate, but true. For now, I am still "changing" to Windows 7 for new machines on the Microsoft side. Personally, I'm betting that the inevitable backlash against ever-changing, never-owned, user-hostile, sub-standard digital products is going to pick up enough momentum over the next few years that either Microsoft or whoever actually kills their business will offer a better alternative before 2020 when Win7 support is scheduled to end.