Slashdot Log In
All Microsoft Updates Phone Home
Posted by
samzenpus
on Thu Mar 08, 2007 04:09 PM
from the always-watching-you dept.
from the always-watching-you dept.
juct writes "In the wake of heise Security's report on the garrulous WGA Notification, Microsoft has now supplied additional details on the data sent. They have revealed to developers that apparently all updates relay information to the company in Redmond."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
What if. . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Since you've never activated WGA, does that mean you're invisible to Microsoft?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Windows Defender for instance, comes as local executable - but obviously, the WGA authentication is remote.
probably a non-issue anyway.
Re:No (Score:5, Informative)
Again, it's been this way for quite a while, and the information does not "perfectly" identify you, but each install has it's own signature as far as I can tell so they can deduce who you are pretty quickly.
Why do you care now as opposed to all of the other Microsoft's-evil-OS stories on
Parent
Re:What if. . .piracy were more difficult? (Score:4, Interesting)
My hope is that is all of these things make running pirated versions of Windows more difficult -particularly in the developing countries where internet connectivity is spotty such that OSS can gain in popularity and use. This could end up being a real win for Linux and other OSS.
cue stories of entire countries running off a single pirated copies of Windows and Office.....
-I'm just sayin'
Parent
Reverse double-speak? (Score:3, Insightful)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again... (Score:4, Funny)
P.C. Phone Home
*ahem* I mean.. uhh.. I can understand wanting some information about the machines running one's software, as it helps understand the market and improve upon current design. But SOME of this information seems a bit excessive. Unless one plans to start banning specific pieces of hardware, but that's just evil.
Blog Translation (Score:5, Funny)
> By learning at what point in the install process some users decide to abandon, we can put more effort into the right places in the installation wizard. Remember our goal with the wizard is to give more information so customers will be better informed. We heard from customers that they wanted more information about what the software was and how it worked so we created the install wizard to provide that greater context. Knowing this kind of information about the install wizard installations is critical for us to continue to improve the customer experience of WGA. If we are not hitting that mark, we can use this method to improve.
By learning at what point in the install process some users decide to say "Fuck this, I didn't sign up for this!", we can put more effort into the right places in the installation wizard. Remember our goal with the wizard is to obfuscate and misdirect so customers will either not know how we're spying on them, or for those who figure it out, at least they won't be able to sue us over it. We heard from customers that they wanted to know what else were doing behind their backs so we created the install wizard to provide us with plausible deniability. Knowing this kind of information about the install wizard installations is critical for us to continue to propagate the viral meme of WGA and other notions, like software as a service, and ultimately the notion of an operating system as a subscription-based service, like we're doing with the Windows Vista self-destruct sequence. If we are not hitting that mark, we can use this method to slowly increase the amount of DRM we've crammed up your ass until you look like the Goatse Guy, and if we do it slowly enough, you'll not only pay us, you'll thank us for the privilege!.
EULA (Score:5, Interesting)
So I guess it might be a bit sneaky, but it has all been covered by WGA disclosures.
An example of the XML returned when a user cancels an installation is available here [msdn.com], "just to allay any fears that Microsoft is using any personal information".
So ya, I don't think this is a huge deal, nor particularly unexpected.
UK/EU - Data Protection Act (Score:5, Interesting)
List of data sent back (Score:5, Informative)
From the WGA Blog [msdn.com]
- Source ID (which product is requesting an update) - necessary to get the right patches
- Event Code - Not sure what sort of events this is tracking, curious, but not necessarily evil
- Version - I assume this means version of the updater, but could mean version of the base software, either way see #1
- Hash of the event - good security check
- Custom Data - completely unexplained, this is what worries me the most in the list
- Return Code - ok from a usability standpoint (most websites track when users leave, so I put this in the same class as that)
- Part of a domain? - no reason for this to be sent, as far as I can see
- Partial binary product key - piracy reasons? Can't think of any other good reason for this
- WPA hash - also unexplained, but probably related to the above
- OS version - see #1
- User locale ID (langauge) - reasonable if they are presenting nationalized dialogs, removes a prompt from the user
- System locale ID (computer default language) - don't see much of a reason for this except as a backup for the first, odd
- Diagnostic code - reasonable for debugging
- Client Id - i.e. GUID - why do they get this if they aren't using it for user tracking
- HD volume serial - no reason for this, except user identification
- Computer security hash - see above
Other than those last identifiers, most of the information I see requested make sense.Re:List of data sent back (Score:4, Funny)
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the theatre?
Parent
Nothing to see (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Nothing to see (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:All updates relay Information... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah totally, because:
- Computer make and model
- Version information for all installed Microsoft software
- Plug&Play ID numbers of hardware devices
- Globally Unique Identifier (GUID)
- BIOS name, revision number, and revision date
are all necessary to download a single specific update not to mention maintain a session to the web-server.Parent
Re:All updates relay Information... (Score:5, Insightful)
Computer make and model -- needed for drivers for specific manufacturers and models. Do you really want to apply a HP patch on a Dell system?
Version information for all installed Microsoft software -- Needed to calculate whether or not updates are needed for Windows Media player, etc. Remember, Windows update does more than just Windows--it also updates all included bundled software with Windows.
Note: Sending information about non-bundled software is needed for Microsoft Update, but not Windows Update. Perhaps lazy coding there--wouldn't YOU want to share the hardware/software detection code for both update utilities?
Plug&Play ID numbers of hardware devices -- Well, it does update hardware drivers...
# Globally Unique Identifier (GUID) -- This seems completely unnecessary.
BIOS name, revision number, and revision date -- I'm not sure, but I believe they may also provide manufacturer-supplied BIOS updates for some manufacturers.
I'm no huge fan of Microsoft, and I'm not saying Microsoft isn't misusing the information, but in 4 out of 5 cases this seems necessary for the service they are providing. Remember, Windows Update updates drivers, hardware, and bundled software too. Microsoft Update services Microsoft software as well.
Parent
Re:All updates relay Information... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:All updates relay Information... (Score:5, Insightful)
I seem to remember Windows Update in Win2000 prominently displayed a message: "Checking your computer for installed updates...this is done without sending any information to Microsoft." And it only downloaded the updates I needed, not every one for every supported product.
Did something fundamental change as to why that system can't work anymore?
Parent
Success/Failure/______/etc./ (Profit?) (Score:5, Insightful)
Kinda sad that we just assume letting vendors capture all this info is part of the game (i.e. necessary to make the update work right). Wrong. When I do "yum upgrade" -- as far as I know -- not a single piece of information about my system goes up the wire. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Parent
YIKES! SQLServer, DB2, Oracle, or TeraData? (Score:5, Insightful)
"In the Privacy Statement of Windows Update Microsoft grants itself fairly far-reaching rights. Thus the information collected by the Redmond-based behemoth includes the computer make and model, version information for the operating system, browser, and any other Microsoft software for which updates might be available, Plug&Play ID numbers of hardware devices, region and language setting, Globally Unique Identifier (GUID), Product ID and Product Key, BIOS name, revision number, and revision date"
There are what - like a billion or so computers in the world running an M$FT operating system?
And e.g. Windows 2000 is now up to something like 125 or 150 Critical Updates since SP4?
And they're keeping track of all of that data?
That's a database that would make the NSA green with envy.
Can SQLServer handle a load like that?
Or would you be looking at something specialized, like what National Cash Register built for Wal-Mart?
Parent
Re:Success/Failure/______/etc./ (Profit?) (Score:4, Insightful)
Kinda sad that we just assume letting vendors capture all this info is part of the game
It's a gradual process. Ever been stopped on the way out the door at Costco? You're basically proving to the door lackey that you're not stealing anything. Since when is proving you didn't steal anything between the check stand and the door become part of the game? Because people let them get away with it.
Companies will keep doing whatever until customers push back. MSFT will keep being the invasive, WGA promoting rat bastards they can be until people extend their middle finger toward Redmond and learn a different operating system.
The door lackey at Wal-Mart tried stopping me the other day and I refused to prove I didn't steal anything, especially considering she had just watched me walk away from the check stand. I told her that if she thought I stole something to call the cops and walked out.
Parent
Re:Next privacy policy change (Score:4, Insightful)
How many slashdotters look at their website logs to see how many people visit and what they use to do so? I'm willing to bet a huge amount of people do, and they're the same people who bitch about MS updates phoning home. To complete HTTP requests you don't *need* anything more than the actual request and an IP address, yet somehow the logs include things like browser versions, screen resolutions and operating systems. You don't complain about those.
Aggregate data is needed to gauge how a product is being used in order to improve it, be it your website, software, a car, a lawnmower or something else. When MS start actively using personally identifiable information to personally target things then I'll worry, but until that day I have no problems with them knowing that 82% of their user base has installed security patch XYZ.
Parent
Re:This is News Now? (Score:4, Insightful)
Has the certificate covering the signer been revoked?
Are you installing some Nokia application or are you installing a disguisted copy of Claria adware? If I get my hands on the private key for the company Nokia is using to build their application, I can sign anything I want as that company. It is up to them to revoke the certificate. Wouldn't you like to know?
I know, if you had the source code you wouldn't need a digital certificate because you could compile it yourself and then you would know. After downloading the libraries it uses. And after checking through all of the source code and comparing MD5 signatures to make sure you have the correct version of all of the libraries, not some spyware-infected trojan.
Sounds sort of like a digital signature to me.
Parent
Perhaps.... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you break the law it is still up to the police and the courts to follow legal procedure to catch you and prove you broke the law and then to punish you commensurate with the proven charges. Even if you steal something and they know you stole it they can't do anything about it till they prove it. Part of that process is to get the legal search warrants and other court orders to permit them to do this.
Microsoft is a civil organization which is usurping the rules of law that were well established. In fact, they are effectively searching everyone's home every time to prove they are not in possession of stolen goods. The government can't do that. Microsoft should not either.
Any information sent to them without our express permission is a violation of our privacy whether they store it or not. It is not permissible for them to blatantly flaunt in our faces the fact that there is no one there to stop them and if you try you won't have the resources to do so.
Again people, remember the computer you have is an extension of your home. It is not a playground for microsoft to do what they want. Would you allow them to come into your home to inventory your belongings and then make you account for all those things you may purchase after the fact? Would you let them check on you any time they choose? Hell no. You would never let anyone into your home to do that. So, why on fucking hearth are you letting them search your computer to inventory your system to send private information back to their offices? Is it because it isn't an inconvenience to you to allow them to do this? Because you have no recourse to stop them?
So, you say that it doesn't hurt you to have them to enter your home and search it and report back to their offices? So, then would it hurt you to allow the government to do this if they could do it in such a non-invasive way? How about putting hidden camera's in say 20% of homes and no one knows they are there so you have at least an 80% chance of not being spied on!?! Would that be acceptable to you? Hell, 1 if 5 chance of being someone that is observed by the government. Once you got used to it, wouldn't it be acceptable to have the government then say 40% and up it over the next 10 years to 60% and then all the way? You would have become accustomed to having the government spy on you?
I think you understand what I'm getting at. This is the same thing. You would not let the government do such a thing, and even some people feel cameras in public are a violation of our privacy.
Microsoft is not the government and they have no rights to do what they are doing. They should not be collecting any information unless you explicitly permit it.
As I have said in other posts. This is about them collecting as many pieces in their databases as possible. Having this information gives them a lot of leverage.
Have you heard about how the patent office has claimed that file sharing software is a threat to national security? How about a monopoly power that has control over 90% of the worlds computers able to go into your computer and home unchecked by any sort of mechanism that is designed for checks and balances? You think that is less a threat to national security than it is to allow people to share information between 1 or 2 or more party members. Either the comments by the patent office are totally ludicrous or no one is willing to accept that this sort of unchecked behavior by a company in control of 90% of the worlds computers is a threat to national security.
Parent
Re:Simple solution (Score:5, Informative)
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/16/13 51217 [slashdot.org]
Parent