[ryx]

Yep. This seems to be the most overlooked part of the article, although maybe the most interesting.

Unfortunately not for anyone who has activated the auto-update feature on his/her Xbox, as the latest system software version seems to include a higher kernel version than supported by the collateral-damage exploit.

[38]

Exactly why you should never, ever, enable auto update, for anything. Too often it ends up breaking something or patching something you don't want patched. It allows a profit seeking company to enable or disable software functionality on your device, regardless if it's in your interest.

[indrora]

It should be noted that unless you've modified an Xbox One, from what I understand you cannot stop it from auto updating unless you permanently disconnect it from the internet (which will cause your licenses to eventually expire, in the year timespan or so), new launch games won't run (they're tied to a minimum version of the OS).

[__MatrixMan__]

Wow, so it's a ticking time bomb, that should be illegal.

[seabass-labrax]

I agree that the device updating without your consent should be illegal, but new games requiring the updates seems fair enough: the Xbox can still run all of the games it was advertised to be able to do so at launch, and if game developers could not rely on the presence of system updates, Microsoft would just release an entirely new, incompatible Xbox instead. I think that updates are fine so long as you can update and roll back whenever you want to.

[Tanoc]

The PSP had firmware updates as well, and certain games strongly encouraged you to do so. But many had a workaround: The firmware loaded from the UMD itself. This meant your minimum firmware version could be rolled back, or that in some cases you didn't need to update and then rollback at all, as it was all loaded from the UMD. No matter what though, Sony mandated that all games support a minimum version. The last minimum version I remember was 3.00 from 2007 that introduced MemoryStick verification as an alternative to UMD verification because the PlayStation Store necessitated the ability to run without UMDs, and the final firmware update being 6.60 from 2011.

We could easily go back to installing firmware on-disc or in-download and only calling it at runtime. We won't because devs are in a desperate and futile campaign to outrun console modding (and to some extent piracy) they can't control. With consoles moving to common PC hardware rather than custom hardware like Flipper or Cell they're just going to get broken into faster and faster, so the only bet is harsher and harsher DRM on the software side. AMD straight up sold PlayStation 5 defects as the AMD 4700S "all in one" board.

[71bw]

>and the final firmware update being 6.60 from 2011

6.61 from January 2015[1].

[1] https://www.psdevwiki.com/psp/index.php?title=Official_Firmw...

[Zambyte]

Depending on if you consider "authorization" to require consent or informed consent, it already is illegal behavior under CFAA.

[klodolph]

That would require a pretty creative interpretation of the CFAA.

[timenova]

The same is the case with the Xbox Series X/S. I was shown three options for the last update: [Update Now] [Continue Offline without Updating] [Shut Down Xbox].

[38]

right, so at this point you dont own the device any more, you are renting it.

[Jerrrry]

Which is exactly what you agreed to in the terms of service you evidently did not read

I want to be the only cheater in my lobby.

[rvba]

How can I read the terms of service when I need to pay for the device first?

[38]

ah yes, the legally unenforceable overbroad terms of service? those?

[eric-hu]

> (which will cause your licenses to eventually expire, in the year timespan or so)

Can you manually modify the system clock? If so you could roll the calendar back every 3-6 months.

[thot_experiment]

Yup, 100%. My golden rule of computers is:

If it's working right now, an update can only cause it to break. The best case scenario is that it still works. Why would your roll the dice?

[hoffs]

Golden rule to get exploited

[38]

the "but muh security" argument is absolute horseshit 99% of the time. and the 1% that actually need it, are going well beyond automatic updates to secure their systems.

[trog]

If you look at the background radiation of the Internet of automated things just hitting services to probe for exploits, they are most commonly looking for exploits from bugs in older software.

There's a timing argument - that unless you're at risk of zero days (like you're the DOD) - that you probably don't need to upgrade immediately. But it seems unarguable to me that the longer you wait, the greater the risk from a security perspective.

As always, security is a trade off. Risk of breaking from an update has to be balanced against risk of exploit. I'd argue the latter is going up more quickly than the former.

[thot_experiment]

How many actual zerodays are there that don't require you to ALSO be doing something dumb per year? It seems exceedingly rare. I understand the argument if you're talking about like, a server running some CMS or whatever, sure that's gonna get pwned because it's a big target so it's worth going after. Your natted personal machine? You're fine unless you're running executable off random russian sites (and even then you're probably fine if you're getting your shit from reputable shady sites)

[LorenzoGood]

No, this is a crazy take, old versions of software are usually rife with exploits, where everyone knows about the bug.

[thot_experiment]

It's really not, I never upgrade anything and I haven't been pwned in like a decade. (Or maybe I have been pwned but not in a way that's affected me at all so you know, whatever)

[Tepix]

Attacks get automated and targets are no longer hand-picked. Having many unpatched systems makes the environment ripe for self-replicating worms.

[emeril]

so true - the few who are at risk of real exploits are already aware of this and do more than just system updates

I only let my browser autoupdate (somewhat reluctantly) since I view that as the most likely security issue on my winpc but when I used to let win10 autoupdate (and other garbage dell drivers), things would start breaking after each update

this also applies to phone app updates - I only update if there's a reason to, not just for the sake of updating...

and people wonder why I have the best working phone and pc at the office...

[appendix-rock]

> the few that are at risk…

Boxes get popped all the time. Why are you painting such a dishonest picture?

> and people wonder why I have the best working phone and pc at the office...

Probably because you know about computers. Nothing to do with your poor security practice.

And this still doesn’t say anything about the explicitly absolutist advice in the parent comment. “No matter the circumstance, turn auto-update off! Just in case you want to partake in some piracy!”

[LoganDark]

> Probably because you know about computers. Nothing to do with your poor security practice.

IME knowing about computers is what causes auto-update to break things. Because you actually rely on the kind of things that it would break.

[adr1an]

The arch rule says update btw

[appendix-rock]

Absurd. There are benefits to enabling auto-updating (security, etc). One should weigh up the costs / benefits oneself and make a call based on that. As usual, such absolutist guidance is hyperbolic.

[HeavyStorm]

Yeah, never ever make sure you are patched against hackers who can exploit your devices...

[newdee]

Nobody should follow this advice. Not least because you (the person giving it) wouldn’t have to live with the consequences of following it, but mostly because it’s idiotic.