AfterDawn: Tech news

Samsung backtracks on patch that disabled automatic Windows Updates

Written by Andre Yoskowitz (Google+) @ 28 Jun 2015 23:38 User comments (14)

Samsung backtracks on patch that disabled automatic Windows Updates Earlier this week, Samsung outraged Microsoft and consumers by patching its Window PCs and disabling Window's automatic updates.
The update made it so users had to manually check for updates and then choose to install them. Outside of the obvious convenience issues, not having automatic updates is also a major security concern. Samsung, at least at first, did not see it that way. "As part of our commitment to consumer satisfaction, we are providing our users with the option to choose if and when they want to update the Windows software on their products," said the company's first statement.

As of writing, Samsung has backtracked on their original stance, and will be "issuing a patch through the Samsung Software Update notification process to revert back to the recommended automatic Windows Update settings within a few days."

Source:
VB

Previous Next  

14 user comments

129.6.2015 12:57

This is the smartest way to go but unfort not for the masses as most people are just dumb as sh*t, walking (or computing) around with blinders on.

229.6.2015 14:59

Samsung made the right move in disabling Automatic Updates. The pending Security Flaw in Windows 10, due to be rolled out on July 29, 2015, is going to enable hackers to use the Auto-Update feature's connection to circumnavigate Security Software.
Expect Microsoft to "DENY" the Flaw exists and then as usual Deny responsibility for the breaches / damages it incurs. Nothing new there.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 29 Jun 2015 @ 14:59

329.6.2015 16:22

Originally posted by LarryJP:
Samsung made the right move in disabling Automatic Updates. The pending Security Flaw in Windows 10, due to be rolled out on July 29, 2015, is going to enable hackers to use the Auto-Update feature's connection to circumnavigate Security Software.
Expect Microsoft to "DENY" the Flaw exists and then as usual Deny responsibility for the breaches / damages it incurs. Nothing new there.


2nd comment you've made that's totally conspiracy theorist-like.

You no longer have any credibility with the sensible-minded.

429.6.2015 19:57

Originally posted by hearme0:




2nd comment you've made that's totally conspiracy theorist-like.

You no longer have any credibility with the sensible-minded.
Agreed

529.6.2015 21:00

Seems to me that the "Credibility" of those who predicted the Economic Crash the U.S.A. recently experienced was also considered questionable but they prepared anyhow and positioned themselves to take advantage of the "Sensible Minded Sheeple" who didn't.

Like them I've put forth the effort to enlighten those who will listen and take sensible steps to protect themselves. whether or not Microsoft, you, or for that matter anyone takes precautions is beyond my control and I can live with that. I've already taken the necessary steps to protect myself which makes your "Criticism" pointless. Hey, if it make you somehow feel superior . . . then enjoy it while you can.

630.6.2015 11:25

Originally posted by LarryJP:
Seems to me that the "Credibility" of those who predicted the Economic Crash the U.S.A. recently experienced was also considered questionable but they prepared anyhow and positioned themselves to take advantage of the "Sensible Minded Sheeple" who didn't.

Like them I've put forth the effort to enlighten those who will listen and take sensible steps to protect themselves. whether or not Microsoft, you, or for that matter anyone takes precautions is beyond my control and I can live with that. I've already taken the necessary steps to protect myself which makes your "Criticism" pointless. Hey, if it make you somehow feel superior . . . then enjoy it while you can.


You're funny. As dumb as your comments are, you're funny.

730.6.2015 12:46

Originally posted by thatBeatsguy:
Originally posted by LarryJP:
Seems to me that the "Credibility" of those who predicted the Economic Crash the U.S.A. recently experienced was also considered questionable but they prepared anyhow and positioned themselves to take advantage of the "Sensible Minded Sheeple" who didn't.

Like them I've put forth the effort to enlighten those who will listen and take sensible steps to protect themselves. whether or not Microsoft, you, or for that matter anyone takes precautions is beyond my control and I can live with that. I've already taken the necessary steps to protect myself which makes your "Criticism" pointless. Hey, if it make you somehow feel superior . . . then enjoy it while you can.


You're funny. As dumb as your comments are, you're funny.
I wonder how much Apple is paying him to spread this? lol

830.6.2015 16:59

Originally posted by LarryJP:
Seems to me that the "Credibility" of those who predicted the Economic Crash the U.S.A. recently experienced was also considered questionable but they prepared anyhow and positioned themselves to take advantage of the "Sensible Minded Sheeple" who didn't.

Like them I've put forth the effort to enlighten those who will listen and take sensible steps to protect themselves. whether or not Microsoft, you, or for that matter anyone takes precautions is beyond my control and I can live with that. I've already taken the necessary steps to protect myself which makes your "Criticism" pointless. Hey, if it make you somehow feel superior . . . then enjoy it while you can.



Um, whut..?!

Point of fact, many smarter economists (and anybody with a smidgeon of sense) knew perfectly well the crash was coming - the only question was how big it would be - and were public about it. Thing is, people, as a species, are not rational beings most of the time. Which, of course, also negates much of what the "Chicago school" of economics has to say, but I digress - lol.

Tl;dr? People wanted to believe the crash wasn't coming, so they ignored its inevitability. It's basic human nature.

You've been on about this supposed vulnerability for a while now. You may very well be correct, mind you, but no one is going to pay attention to someone who comes across as a pompous ass.

I imagine you're positing a man-in-the-middle attack vs. the now-mandatory update system (which I'm not overly fond of, myself). Sorry LarryJP, but until you can give specifics, you gots nothin'. Remember, ANYONE can claim to have special knowledge about anything at all; the proof is in the pudding.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 30 Jun 2015 @ 17:08

930.6.2015 19:02

Now if the bastards would take the same stance with their Smart TV auto Updates! I really wish those would stop.

1030.6.2015 20:37

I have my updates setting to check for updates & notify me if there are any available.

1130.6.2015 20:42

Originally posted by ddp:
I have my updates setting to check for updates & notify me if there are any available.

I'm under the impression that Win10 just downloads and installs the update(s), period, whether or not you want it to; are you using Win10 or an older Windows?

1230.6.2015 20:55

win 7 & I've done the same on win8 for customers.

131.7.2015 13:41

Originally posted by ddp:
win 7 & I've done the same on win8 for customers.

I think that's the smartest option, frankly, and I actually support Samsung on this. I've had to undo an update for more than one family member, when it completely borked their system. Service Pack 2 for XP is a classic example; roughly 20% of PCs had an immediate BSOD, when it first was issued; ugh. And SP3 had similar issues.

I think the problem is that we're finally reaching a tipping-point, between security and choice in operating systems. There's just SO MANY exploits/maleware/etc. out there that depend on exploiting vulnerabilities that should have been patched; there simply is no excuse for much of it. Furthermore, it'll simply be harder to pirate Win10, if you can't turn off specific updates.

That said, I think this will turn off corporate users a good deal, considering how many (if not most) prefer to vet updates, before allowing them onto their systems.

141.7.2015 20:52

especially agree on that last sentence.

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive