> I think it's a far GREATER danger to have an outside party making changes to your > computer and installing software on it without your knowledge or consent, especially > given Microsoft's history. If I were in a country outside the U.S., I'd definitely > never purchase any American-made machine with such a feature or from any company that > takes such liberties. I shan't go into a lengthy argument about this because time > will vindicate me just as it has with Facebook.
Well if you run Windows your options are either hand that choice to Microsoft, or hand it to some random group of hackers who will exploit your machine because you left it full of security holes.
Not running Microsoft at all is a valid choice, but leaving your machine full of security holes that are documented in the wild and open to all because you didn't patch is NEVER a valid choice; that is how bad things have happened, and continue to happen. The majority of recent high profile outbreaks have been with bugs that were already long patched, but the patches not applied.
This isn't really a difficult decision, and if it concerns you that much then you shouldn't be running Windows at all.
The only reasons I can see to have software out there completely blocking Windows updates are nefarious; to leave exploitable systems out there, and 'prove' that Windows has bad security, although the reality is any system, be it Windows or Linux based, left unpatched is highly irresponsible.
I'm surprised there haven't been more issues along these lines with modern smartphones too, such is the poor after-market support from manufacturers; there are billions of vulnerable devices out there where patches simply weren't offered, all network connected too. It's a timebomb for sure, especially if they get used as a way onto other networks which given their nature is highly possible.
|