Did A Google Earth Mistake Cause A Couple's Brutal Murder?
Tumblr 101: Tips And Tricks To Get Started
InfoWorld takes misguided jabs at Microsoft over MSE updates
Microsoft has received an awful lot of positive feedback about Security Essentials. It's easily one of the best options Windows users have -- paid or free -- for malware and virus protection.
InfoWorld thinks, however, that Security Essentials has a rather irritating and serious flaw: its update mechanism.
The post I'm talking about takes issue with MSE "taking liberties" with users' Windows Update preferences. If you've previously set your updates to either 1) download and install later or 2) notify but don't download, MSE will flip the switch and turn on full-blown, install-when-it-chooses Windows updates.
That's bull, says InfoWorld's Woody Leonhard. If you've set your settings, MSE should bloody well leave them alone. "Why does the installer take it upon itself to change the setting? Only Redmond knows."
Well... not quite.
Microsoft has made it clear that MSE updates itself via the Windows Update service. In fact, they call it out very clearly on the Security Essentials website. It's right there on the Resources tab, and here's what it says:
Microsoft Update
What this feature does: Microsoft Security Essentials turns on automatic updating from Windows Update and Microsoft Update to help keep your computer current with updates to Windows and other Microsoft software. Microsoft Update is essential to providing you with the latest malware threat definition updates for Microsoft Security Essentials.
If you choose to install MSE, you're choosing to play by those rules. If MSE can't update itself, you're not being fully protected. Out-of-date is not a good thing for any anti-malware or anti-virus program. Heck, part of what make MSE an excellent program is its small footprint -- which is due in no small part to the fact that it takes advantage of features already built in to Windows like Windows Update.
On top of that, you're gambling with your security if you don't have Updates running at home anyway. It's common for network administrators to turn off the service in an enterprise environment, but MSE isn't licensed for use at work anyway.
It's for use at home.
And at home, if you value your security and privacy, you should be running an up-to-date operating system and anti-malware program!
I suppose, however, it's more fun for some people to rip into Microsoft and throw about words like trampled and hijacked than it is to acknowledge that MSE is simply working exactly the way Microsoft intends it to.
Comments
18
Subscribe to commentsRollinsJun 3rd 2010 8:37AM
Most users can't be trusted to know their update settings, never mind actually set them.
Those of us who know what we're doing can simply switch our Windows Update settings back after installation. It's a small price to pay for a nice free antivirus.
John JimenezJun 3rd 2010 8:48AM
But are we sure that MSE does not revert these settings on the fly?
RollinsJun 3rd 2010 8:50AM
Yes - I've used it since release. It changes your settings at some point during installation but leaves them alone after that.
John JimenezJun 3rd 2010 8:46AM
I think the issue is that MSE does not update just MSE. There have been numerous instances where a MS Update has severely broken functionality in some applications.
I understand that for the average "i just want things to work" user; this may not be a problem. But as a more advanced user, I should be able to pick and choose which updates I want to install.
A forced update that causes on-boot blue screens does not really help my computer. It may even put it at greater risk of me reformatting the drive to get up and running before a patch comes out, or worse throwing the thing out of frustration.
216Jun 3rd 2010 8:50AM
I love the fact that MSE forces auto-updating. Its one the prime reasons I advice everyone I know to use it (along with the fact that its free and it kicks azz)
Like Google Chrome, I dont think updates should be "optional". They should be automatic and invisible to the average user.
JohnTheJimenezJun 3rd 2010 10:00AM
"To the average user"; yes updates should be automatic and invisible. And there isn't much worrying about updating a browser. But updating system dependent files should be optional to those that know what they are doing.
If an update gets automatically installed on my network and it brings down all 10 of my computers, I have an issue. Multiple this to a corporate work place and you have major losses in money.
minibarJun 3rd 2010 11:23AM
if updates were truly invisible then nobody would care. i don't mind that (chrome, etc.) wants to update itself, but when every software has an update process it can seriously slow down what i'm doing for an extended period, and i simply can't afford to get a new box. there's a bigger point that's missed in that i install a bunch of software on my box and it works great, but over time the updates leave me with a far bulkier and unresponsive box. that's the issue. if slowing my box to a crawl is more secure, then i'd rather pick and choose updates. it's not just updates that slow me down, it's all the startup pre-loading processes, though many of them arrive with updates. it's like a slow motion bait and switch.
crstffrJun 3rd 2010 10:02AM
The only problem I have with the auto-update is that it always wants to do it when I'm already trying to do something, which makes my computer freak out, chew up internet bandwidth, and generally make me angry for 5 minutes while it decides to do what it needs to do.
Overall MSE is a great program, and auto-updates are fine for the majority, I just wish that it would ask me before doing anything.
alahmnatJun 3rd 2010 1:13PM
The major problem I have with Windows Update is that the _default_ behavior leads to wiping out your workspace, and possibly unsaved work, almost every time there's an update released. And it does so, again by default, in the middle of the night when you're not around to tell it to eff off for a few minutes while you get everything "put away".
I can't express how often I've come into work to see my whole programming department pissed off that their systems were auto-updated overnight and they have to re-open all of the stuff they were in the middle of working on.
JamesJun 3rd 2010 10:19AM
I haven't run the installer in ages, but I've gotta say that if it does this *silently*, e.g. without a popup saying "hey, buddy, just so you know, I turned on Windows Update for ya", that's *not OK*. As previous commenters have already pointed out, there are Windows Updates that break things. I'd say that on the whole they do way more good than harm, but as a "power user" I like to review my updates before installing -- you know, that's probably the reason they have a setting that lets you do that in the first place. So taking that ability away silently is just bad design. "Silently unset a preference I just changed" is not in accordance with the Principle of Least Surprise.
MxxConJun 3rd 2010 10:32AM
Lee, i think you misunderstood the issue.
The problem infoworld has with MSE is that some people don't want Windows to update itself whenever it chooses.
I personally have no problem with MSE updating itself whenever it wants to, however i want to have a say when Windows install its own updates. The problem is that settings for updating MSE and Windows are linked.
_||_Jun 3rd 2010 11:18AM
You can revert your Windows Update settings to whatever you prefer after MSE installation and it respects that perpetually.
As this article notes, MSE is not meant for corporate or managed enterprise scenarios.
The update process is almost completely unobtrusive and fool-proof on Windows 7 and Windows Vista with the Platform Update. I don't deal with XP any more, but having used it for 7+ years, I know that the update mechanism on XP became too broken and unmanageable as it approached end-of-life
stinlen56Jun 3rd 2010 6:08PM
You're very much right. Furthermore, these people who claim to want to be able to "pick and choose" wouldn't know a bad update if it bit them in the face. All things being equal, a system that isn't up to date is much more of a hazard than one that may, someday get a bad update.
ChristianJun 3rd 2010 6:13PM
I never really had any update issues with MSE. Most of the time I will get a little notification (using windows 7 Pro x64) before it installs itself. Most of the time I control it to accept and never had to even reboot. There are times when it's required but I just tell it to remind me in 4 hours after so it doesn't pop-up every time. The way I see it is a 5 minute break so my eyes don't get blind from staring nonstop on my monitor and my patience gets tested so I'd calm down and grab a tea at the office kitchen and let it do its thing.
SierraJun 4th 2010 10:54AM
You know, to the people that say they have their workspaces wiped out each time windows update runs I'd have to say that you need to learn new habits. Like closing programs at the end of the day. That would also help programs like corporate backups, anti-virus / anti-malware programs, defrags and anything else that your administrators run at night.
It seems like people are so spoiled these days, sorry but you might want to think about the fact the Windows can be left on pretty much indefinitely rather than whine about it having to reboot for patches/updates.
FabianNJun 6th 2010 4:55AM
Seems like everyone has missed the point.
The point is that a range of infections break windows update. This is a security issue for MSE.
bwcbizJun 6th 2010 8:34AM
I wouldn't mind MSE changing the update settings to automatic if MS didn't force new "features" like Silverlight and .Net plugins on users through the updater. This explains why Silverlight suddenly appeared on my laptop after I had denied it every month after patch Tuesday.
LCJul 15th 2010 3:25AM
If all upgrades were worry-free, you would be right. Unfortunately, computer history is littered with upgrades, especially virus/security upgrades from every company, including Microsoft, doing way more harm than good. That's why I prefer to wait at least a few weeks after an upgrade has been released before I apply it - and why I want to choose when to do the upgrade which is, most definitely, not, for ex., when I am on deadline.
I have neither the time nor energy to waste restoring my computer to the status it was before an upgrade trashes something key. Let others, who have the time & energy, be the guinea pigs.