akaladis Veteran Posted August 31, 2007 Veteran Share Posted August 31, 2007 Hard to say, it could have been anything; even a change in staff/management.With the mention of malicious code, it makes me wonder if someone repacked AutoPatcher with malware and a new MD5Hash on a mirror site and then an end user who used that AutoPatcher reported the problem to Microsoft. It's really hard to say. AutoPatcher has had several security features for years now. Altering a module will be caught be AutoPatcher's own MD5 integrity checks and the user will be alerted appropriately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
»X« Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 What did M2ys4U do exactly? I went back but couldn't find anything. Walk about with a billboard or something. My favourite part of the story is on the front page.. Whilst Neowin.net does not officially endorse such a protest, we are pleased that it remained peaceful and nobody had to get hurt. :rofl: There will be blood running in the streets next! He didnt really have many options available to him to be fair. Just parade with a sign. Unless he got bare arsed, that would take it up a notch. With a tattoo saying something about "security holes" or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NienorGT Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 What did M2ys4U do exactly? I went back but couldn't find anything. https://www.neowin.net/index.php?act=view&id=42304 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdzzzUK Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 AutoPatcher has had several security features for years now. Altering a module will be caught be AutoPatcher's own MD5 integrity checks and the user will be alerted appropriately. Given that that's the case (thanks for the clarification), then I can see no reason why MS are kicking off. Is it the WGA? No, MS have already advised this isn't the issue Is it because the patches might have been altered? No, because this isn't possible... Is it because the AutoPatcher team have provided (for free) an offline method of patching fresh installs? (IE if by threatening legal action MS can create a new income stream?) You decide... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panacik Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 well I'm sorry I live in Reading and not RedmondAnyways, the idea was that it would be a laugh Well im going home for one night on Saturday, so if you wanted to do a protest on Saturday then i would be up for it. However i have to be home by at least 4pm to get ready for a night of binge drinking. Dont think ther would be to many people around on Saturday though :( By the way, my home is just next to Reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdzzzUK Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 You know something? I wish I lived in Reading. Because if I did I'd be following in M2ys4U's footsteps, and organising a frikking huge protest to picket their offices over the weekend. Heck, I'd take Monday off too, AND ensure that it made the press... We, as a community, need to back the AutoPatcher Project, and Neowin, and use people power to get the message across to Microsoft that this is a worthy project and should not - ever - be "canned". The one thing that MS Legal said is that they "didn't know about the AutoPatcher project". Sorry, but thats BS, It's been around for years!! I'm gonna post a message on another site I'm a member of, which I *know* is frequented by several MS employees in Seattle, and get their attention. Let's not loose any momentum on this - at the moment, we have the upper hand and we can fight back by keeping up the pressure on MS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whocares78 Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 You know something? I wish I lived in Reading. Because if I did I'd be following in M2ys4U's footsteps, and organising a frikking huge protest to picket their offices over the weekend. Heck, I'd take Monday off too, AND ensure that it made the press... We, as a community, need to back the AutoPatcher Project, and Neowin, and use people power to get the message across to Microsoft that this is a worthy project and should not - ever - be "canned". The one thing that MS Legal said is that they "didn't know about the AutoPatcher project". Sorry, but thats BS, It's been around for years!! I'm gonna post a message on another site I'm a member of, which I *know* is frequented by several MS employees in Seattle, and get their attention. Let's not loose any momentum on this - at the moment, we have the upper hand and we can fight back by keeping up the pressure on MS. just because it has been around for years doens't mean everyone should know about it, hell the first i ever heard of it was when you all started complaining P.S. this keyboard is crap for typing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panacik Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 just because it has been around for years doens't mean everyone should know about it, hell the first i ever heard of it was when you all started complainingP.S. this keyboard is crap for typing I think your wrong. There are a LOT of techies who use the program at work etc. Just because YOU didnt know about it, doesnt mean that others did. MS as far as i know also monitor Neowin and other tech sites daily to ensure there are no warez links being posted etc that are not being cleaned by the mods. Therfore the likelyhood is that they where well aware of AP for some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete4r Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 why ? we buy the XP CD and we are M$'s customer , hotfix is needed , we can do anything with the hotfix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete4r Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 M$ is unreasonable ! What a unreasonable the legal is ! FUBI FUM$ %$@%^$#&$%&^ #^#$^$&@#^&@# %!#^@$^&$%& @#$^@$^$#$ ^#!^$@$&@#^ @$&^%$#&$%&*%^( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krav3n Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 Autopatcher is no longer allowed but is there still a support for users? I have a problem installing autopatcher it says: What AutoPatcher was trying to do It appears that the error occured while AutoPatcher was trying to get commandline arguments. Where: mdlInitialization.Main() Error Code: 0?35: File not found Attempting to initialize common controls. Accessing filesystem? The log file is locked!!! AutoPatcher cannot write to it!! AutoPatcher 5.6 loaded the filesystem. Detected English (1033) Windows XP Professional Service Pack 2 System Components: Internet Explorer: 6.0.2900.2769 Windows Media Player: 10.0.0.3955 .NET Framework: 2.0.50727.42|2.0SP0 Windows Installer: 3.1.4000.1823 DirectX: 4.09.00.0904 MSN/Live Messenger: Office Components: Microsoft Word: 11.0.6359.0 Microsoft Excel: 11.0.6355.0 Microsoft PowerPoint: 11.0.6361.0 Microsoft Outlook: Microsoft Access: 11.0.6355.0 Microsoft Project: Microsoft Publisher: 11.0.6255.0 Microsoft OneNote: Microsoft FrontPage: Microsoft InfoPath: Microsoft Visio: Microsoft SharePoint Designer: Microsoft Groove: Can someone help me please?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete4r Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 pm for me email of M$ , please :| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panacik Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 pete4r. When you purchase Windows, you are only buying a licence to run THEIR software. This does not give you rights over the software itself. That is the same for the hotfixes. The licence allows you to download and install a copy of the updates under their own T&C under the EULA. If that T&C is broken, then they have every right to act upone it. However, in this case as has been mentioned many times in this thread, MS thought that the AP website was offering the download of Windows and not just the updates, so ther may be a chance they will allow the project to continue once again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdzzzUK Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 Here's something I've just thought of, to throw into the mix. All of these security updates are publicly available for anyone to download from the Microsoft site - which means they are in the public domain. All AutoPatcher does is repackage the updates so they can be installed "offline". And there's a mechanism whereby you have to agree to two EULAs (MS ones if I'm not mistaken) before you install any updates if you're using AutoPatcher. So how, exactly, are we in breach of the EULA when we're still agreeing to the T&C's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panacik Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 Here's something I've just thought of, to throw into the mix.All of these security updates are publicly available for anyone to download from the Microsoft site - which means they are in the public domain. All AutoPatcher does is repackage the updates so they can be installed "offline". And there's a mechanism whereby you have to agree to two EULAs (MS ones if I'm not mistaken) before you install any updates if you're using AutoPatcher. So how, exactly, are we in breach of the EULA when we're still agreeing to the T&C's? We are in breach because we are only suppose to be allowed to download the updates through Windows Update. If we are taking these updates and putting them in to a program that can be used by people without having to use Windows Update, then that in fact goes against the rules of the EULA as far as i know. However, the email also mentioned something about running the updates without runnig WGA, which is wrong on MS's part, because the tools does in fact run before the updates and will not allow the updates to install without EGA varification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurmoth Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 I love this quote from the news post "Microsoft Remains Silent on AutoPatcher": "A lot (probably a majority) of people using an illegal copy of Windows don't know that they are doing so." That's bull**** IMO. I bet the majority of people who are using an illegal copy know they are. People know it is wrong, they just don't care. But they know. I have to wonder if Microsoft honestly believes that, because if they do they don't deserve to recoup those lost sales. All I can say to Microsoft is good riddance! I've bought myself a new iMac and I will be getting rid of all of my Windows-based machines for good. Not necessarily because of this, but because of Vista being utter crap. This is just icing on the cake. I hope they come to their senses about this ridiculous decision. I'm not saying that they don't have the right to have AutoPatcher shutdown, I'm just saying that their current reasons are a bit flawed. Their timing, waiting for four years after the project was started sounds more like a PR stunt than anything. There's other reasons and I think the Windows community, especially the AutoPatcher team that dedicated so much time to a fantastic project deserves an answer to why! Like what's been said before, typical Microsoft. They can state these reasons: security, copyright infringement, blah blah blah. It is all bull**** IMO. Microsoft isn't in the business of pleasing their customers, they're in the business of screwing them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 it's not much but here is my support... unless someone else can make a better "SUPPORT AUTO PATCHER" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
z4g0rz4g0r Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 I think your wrong. There are a LOT of techies who use the program at work etc. Just because YOU didnt know about it, doesnt mean that others did. dunno if i've misunderstood you, but real "techies" who need to deploy windows updates on a large scale network (200+ machines) wouldnt use AutoPatcher, they'd use WSUS. You can nominate a member server to download localised updates in one central location, and configure each machine (via group policies) to obtain the updates from that nominated server. It only downloads the updates once via MS's dump, and distrubutes them via your local server, ensuring bandwidth isnt wasted by duplicate downloads :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
velkymx Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 Tell M$ what you think about this... https://support.microsoft.com/common/survey...WS=mscomukform1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr.bisho Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 thats so pro of you allan, i really respect your move, however, i wonder if microsoft agrees with you.... guys i really like what autopatcher did, and how it heleped lots i say, instaed micorsoft shall either create update modules monthly, and make them available, or recruit auto patcher team to do it, these guys really deserve something good for the service they have done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codesmith Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 (edited) I am now currently using Autopatcher XP for the 5th time this week. I charge my clients a fixed rate for reinstalls + security updates. Without AP I will have to charge more. Also I routinely hand out AP CD's to people with dialup connections. Downloading over 100 updates via dialup isn't fun. Many skip the larger updates. **** Microsoft. BTW I did provide Microsoft with my feedback minus the profanity. If Microsoft is going to do this then they need to start releasing their own downloadable auto-patching utility. Then they can guarantee the authenticity of the updates as well as require any WGA checks they deem necessary. Edited August 31, 2007 by Codesmith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laughing Man Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 dunno if i've misunderstood you, but real "techies" who need to deploy windows updates on a large scale network (200+ machines) wouldnt use AutoPatcher, they'd use WSUS. You can nominate a member server to download localised updates in one central location, and configure each machine (via group policies) to obtain the updates from that nominated server. It only downloads the updates once via MS's dump, and distrubutes them via your local server, ensuring bandwidth isnt wasted by duplicate downloads :) Haha at Maryland that shut down the computer teaching room (rooms that are setup so each desk has a computer and they're all synced together) on a Midterm day for me. Somehow the scheduling was off so the server was updating all these computers during the time I was suppose to be taking a midterm (hence no midterm that day). But yeah, there needs to be a way to update offline. Even Linux has this problem, makes it a pain for people on 56k or slow connections. Or even people who have caps of 2 GBs a day (*cough* some friend at Chicago University). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panacik Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 dunno if i've misunderstood you, but real "techies" who need to deploy windows updates on a large scale network (200+ machines) wouldnt use AutoPatcher, they'd use WSUS. You can nominate a member server to download localised updates in one central location, and configure each machine (via group policies) to obtain the updates from that nominated server. It only downloads the updates once via MS's dump, and distrubutes them via your local server, ensuring bandwidth isnt wasted by duplicate downloads :) yes wsus is fine. I kind of expect this has something to do with it becoming used and becoming a competitor to wsus. However by my understanding of wsus and Ap, wouldnt wsus be infringing n the same EULA etc as AP does? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WastedJoker Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 WSUS uses MS's servers and Windows Group Policy. It's not like the machines are configured to download them from random unknowable mirrors out in the wilds of the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin-uk Veteran Posted August 31, 2007 Veteran Share Posted August 31, 2007 However by my understanding of wsus and Ap, wouldnt wsus be infringing n the same EULA etc as AP does? no, wsus is owned/run by microsoft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts