[finnthehuman]

Well, yeah, obviously a bad idea. But the real question everyone in "security" should be asking themselves is "if the idea of having better security is such an easy sell to even the vaguely-clued-in, what have we implemented so poorly that people still use insecure practices? Or go out of their way to disable security?"

The article's point here is that no matter how much windows update might suck, you still need to use it. And that's the problem with security people in general. It's not like they "think their shit doesn't stink" it's that they everyone must put up with whatever level of stench because security is just that important. Which gives them zero incentive to reduce the smell. They'll probably just blame the developers for fucking up the distribution mechanism the same way they blame developers for having the temerity to write bugs.

Unfortunately, the impression I get is that "the security community's" answer is that users do things like disabling windows update because security hasn't been sanctimonious enough towards the unwashed masses, and we should just get on with taking away all of end users' control over their systems for their own good.