• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

AutoPatcher no longer allowed

Recommended Posts

John Ace    0
Lets hope MS come up with there own solution for it I vaguely remember before XP SP2 they did a security rollup where several updates where in the one download.

I think it would be nice if they offered this every now and then a single download that has all the updates in it after SP2 perhaps they could have it make you register the PC after you have ran the updates on it making it possible to update peoples PC’s for them when they are on dial up etc.

Big thanks to Autopatcher team as you guys saved alot of my time in installing the updates on my client's computer. If they are not violating WGA then why do microsoft fear, as their every product is vunerable, ther is nothing new to it or they have the option to get the Autopatcher team into microsoft and ask them to officially release the Setup manually in the form of CD's/ DVD's on famous magzines, which would in turn help the users and purpose of the microsoft is also solved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nashy    1,661

MS must have an auto response for people emailing about it:

Dear Sir/Madam, Thank you for contacting us about AutoPatcher.

I am sorry for the inconvenience caused. I would like to provide you with more information on our position.

It is our policy that the distribution of supplemental code such as hotfixes, security updates, and service packs is discouraged. This policy is in place due to concern for the safety and security of our customers, as we can only guarantee the download's contents when it comes from a Microsoft web site. Distribution of these materials without permission is also an infringement of our copyright.

We try and contact anyone who is in violation of our policy as soon as we can, once we are aware of what they are doing. AutoPatcher is not the only company we have contacted.

We recommend that our customers sign up for Microsoft Update (MU) and enable Automatic Update functionality to receive all updates directly from us. In addition, we have enterprise services such as Windows Server Updates Services (WSUS) that we recommend our enterprise customers to use.

We provide this guidance as it is common to see email scams encouraging people to download our latest patches, but the URL takes them to sites where they are actually exposed to malware. In order to ensure that customers are getting actual Microsoft updates and not malware, we recommend customers get their updates directly from us.

On a separate note, we have noted that you reside in Australia. For more information, you may wish to contact your local Microsoft office on the following website as they may be able to provide more information;

http://www.microsoft.com/worldwide/phone/c...untry=Australia

I hope this information has answered your query, but if you have any more questions please call us on 0870 60 10 100. Our lines are open from 8am to 6pm, Monday to Friday, excluding public holidays. If you still have any more questions, please reply to this email.

Many thanks for contacting us.

Kind regards,

PADMAVATHI LAKSHMAN

Customer Service Professional

Microsoft Customer Services

Protect your PC: Microsoft? recommends that you protect your PC from Viruses and security threats.

Please visit our website http://www.microsoft.com/uk/security/protect/alert.mspx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Panacik    27
MS must have an auto response for people emailing about it:

Well i replied saying that as a home user, i tend to reinstall Windows every 6 months to one year and refuse to have to download all the updates again. Especially because it takes up my bandwith, time and uses up a portion of my 40gig monthly limit!

I also told them, that a home user is unlikely to install a WSUS server at home just for this... that is more for a company to use.

I also asked the question that if AP was to release a new version of their software, which downloads all the updates when you run it and then compiles them on the users machine, would this violate their laws etc.

To be honest, i think the ONLY reason they did this is because they want people to use WSUS and/or spend money using their own products which do exactly the same thing as AP (although probably not as well :)).

MS suck :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zeroday    19
MS must have an auto response for people emailing about it:

I got the same email :s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lexcyn    88
I got the same email :s

Haha I received the exact same e-mail, was going to post it but not anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
deb0    0

Typical Microsoft Monopolistic strong arming. It's all about Windows Genuine because your app doesn't require WGA.

MS wants to squeeze ever possible dollar out of the consumer as they can, especially since they know their monopolistic days are numbered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+mrbester    188
And what about if you only had a original XP CD to use - surely it would take you over a day to get your computer updated.

Ohh, don't do that. You'll get Blastered before you've downloaded a single patch. It's quite likely you'll get Blastered if you leave the network cable plugged in during installation (so you can utilise that "Dynamic Updates" bit)...

A CD with SP2 (and Autopatcher XP Aug install folder), or better yet, a cheap 1GB pen drive with the Office and DirectX extras on it will sort you right out.

It is our policy that the distribution of supplemental code such as hotfixes, security updates, and service packs is discouraged. This policy is in place due to concern for the safety and security of our customers, as we can only guarantee the download's contents when it comes from a Microsoft web site. Distribution of these materials without permission is also an infringement of our copyright.

Welp, that's fair enough, apart from the fact there are authorised redistributors...

We recommend that our customers sign up for Microsoft Update (MU) and enable Automatic Update functionality to receive all updates directly from us. In addition, we have enterprise services such as Windows Server Updates Services (WSUS) that we recommend our enterprise customers to use.

MU (== major upfsck) doesn't work on my legal install; I get the 100% CPU usage crap. I haven't got the time to completely rebuild my rig with all the software I use (a reinstall over the top didn't work) and rejig all the settings just the way I like them. You could roast a turkey in the time it takes to install Visual Studio.

WSUS is overkill. Even locking down to just English patches the downloads are currently at >peeks< about 30GB. AP's combined folder take for the same platforms (2K, XP, 2K3) is less than 1GB. Admittedly that doesn't include the fifty million different versions of NVidia drivers, but I'd rather get those from NVidia anyway.

We provide this guidance as it is common to see email scams encouraging people to download our latest patches, but the URL takes them to sites where they are actually exposed to malware.

Scaremongering. Those who use AP know about it and that the patches are real. They also wouldn't give malware emails the time of day. Those whose boxen are fixed by a helpful friend / neighbour / relative would ask that person about said emails if they ever received one (spam traps work pretty well these days).

...but if you have any more questions please call us on 0870 60 10 100

== "but if you have any more questions please call us on this really expensive number where we'll keep you on hold knowing that you're contributing to our profit margin"

Protect Your PC: Microsoft recommends that you protect your PC from Viruses and Security threats.

Funny that. I could have sworn that was what I did. AV from NOD (Eset isn't listed on the antivirus page) and AP for when MU cocks up / updating friends who are still on dial-up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PrEzi    12

I also have got the same e-mail

here's my reply

> Dear (ME),

>

> Thank you for contacting us about AutoPatcher.

Thank You for Your reply.

> I can see why you feel so let down by the close of AutoPatcher. I would like provide you with more information on our position.

> It is our policy that the distribution of supplemental code such as hotfixes, security updates, and service packs is discouraged. This policy is in

> place due to concern for the safety and security of our customers, as we can only guarantee the download’s contents when it comes from a

> Microsoft web site. Distribution of these materials without permission is also an infringement of our copyright.

> We try and contact anyone who is in violation of our policy as soon as we can, once we are aware of what they are doing. AutoPatcher is not

> the only company we have contacted.

> We recommend that our customers sign up for Microsoft Update (MU) and enable Automatic Update functionality to receive all updates

> directly from us. In addition, we have enterprise services such as Windows Server Updates Services (WSUS) that we recommend our

> enterprise customers to use.

> We provide this guidance as it is common to see email scams encouraging people to download our latest patches, but the URL takes them to

> sites where they are actually exposed to malware. In order to ensure that customers are getting actual Microsoft updates and not malware, we

> recommend customers get their updates directly from us.

But I have some questions for You.

As a home-user I tend to reinstall my Windows and as a repair-man I often go to customers to make computer-repairs.

It's very common, that I reinstall Windows in different places, so the WSUS option is out of question for me, it's too expensive for a one-man

company too.

I also refuse to download all the updates over and over again wasting my time, wasting my monthly-limited bandwidth.

I refuse to use the Monthly updates ISO's because I don't want to waste my precious HDD space on my mobile USB-HDD (and joggling with CD's isn't funny too).

I have a question - If AutoPatcher (AP) would change his policy, and didn't contain any hotfixes BUT download them stright from Microsoft

Servers ONCE, and then store them for later use (as You can make using Download Center) and if there's need - it will first check if the system on which it's running is Genuine, would it violate ANY of the Microsofts laws/policies ?

Using WU over and over again isn't always the best option you know...for the same time-internet bandwidth terms which I have spoken of earlier.

I hope, that Microsoft didn't kill AutoPatcher to favour it's WSUS services and sales...

> I hope this information has answered your query, but if you have any more questions please contact our Customer Services team in the UK on

> 0870 60 10 100. The lines are open from 8am to 6pm, Monday to Friday, excluding public holidays. If you still have any more questions, please

> reply to this email.

I rather prefer the less-expensive e-mails, thank You.

> Many thanks for contacting us.

> Kind regards,

> (cut)

> Customer Service Professional

> Microsoft Customer Services

Thanks for Your reply again, it's nearly the same as replies, that other users have got, but I can imagine You have full hands of work contacting all customers.

> Protect Your PC: Microsoft recommends that you protect your PC from Viruses and Security threats. Please visit our website

> http://www.microsoft.com/uk/security/protect/alert.mspx and follow the steps to stay secure.

On a side-note - AutoPatcher offered great protection for vulnerability/patch-related threats... :-)

Kind regards

(ME)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shof    0

microsoft seems to hate autopatcher now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
raskren    0
OS X has attained UNIX SUS compliance.

No publicly-available Mac OS X build has attained general UNIX certifications. So OS X still != UNIX. (But if Leopard is ever released that will all change).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+M2Ys4U    97
No publicly-available Mac OS X build has attained general UNIX certifications. So OS X still != UNIX. (But if Leopard is ever released that will all change).

touch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PrEzi    12

OK, I've got a reply to my reply to my email to Microsoft :)

Dear (ME),

Thank you for your email.

Due to the nature of your enquiry, it has not been possible for me to answer your question. Therefore, I have taken this opportunity to escalate your query to one of my colleagues for assistance.

Please be assured that once I have received a response, I will relay the relevant information to you.

Please make a note of your reference number (cut).

Many thanks for contacting us.

Kind regards,

(cut)

Customer Service Professional

Microsoft Customer Services

Well... let's see what will the reply be...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tom598652364    0

ironically I heard about autopatcher and joined this forum about 4 days before the plug was pulled. So my ONE post (a tech question) to the forums was pulled before I could read the answer!!

Most of the posts here are understandably about the MS decision. For me, a key question for the Neowin group is, WHAT HAPPENS TO THE FORUMS KNOWLEDGE BASE?? By this I mean the net help and response questions of 100?s of posts over the years.

sinjon smith @ Sep 5 2007, 09:34 wrote ??scorn Neowin for overreacting and taking down non infringing content like the forms??

. . . to which Neobond replied: ?This [taking down the forums] was a joint decision between Neowin and the AutoPatcher team? experience in these sorts of problems, about 7 years of experience??

Everyone certainly can understand Neowin?s desire to play it safe here, but surely the obliteration of the collective wisdom and knowledge is not necessary? Can all the posts not be ?archived? somewhere away from the responsibility of Neowin and away from the long arm of Microshaft.

cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Panacik    27
ironically I heard about autopatcher and joined this forum about 4 days before the plug was pulled. So my ONE post (a tech question) to the forums was pulled before I could read the answer!!

Most of the posts here are understandably about the MS decision. For me, a key question for the Neowin group is, WHAT HAPPENS TO THE FORUMS KNOWLEDGE BASE?? By this I mean the net help and response questions of 100?s of posts over the years.

sinjon smith @ Sep 5 2007, 09:34 wrote ??scorn Neowin for overreacting and taking down non infringing content like the forms??

. . . to which Neobond replied: ?This [taking down the forums] was a joint decision between Neowin and the AutoPatcher team? experience in these sorts of problems, about 7 years of experience??

Everyone certainly can understand Neowin?s desire to play it safe here, but surely the obliteration of the collective wisdom and knowledge is not necessary? Can all the posts not be ?archived? somewhere away from the responsibility of Neowin and away from the long arm of Microshaft.

cheers!

They have been archived. They are just not accessable to the public...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+M2Ys4U    97
Hi,

Firstly, thank you for your completely generic e-mail response.

Secondly, it appears to me that the people involved in making these types of decisions are not aware of the security features in place. For example, all of the Microsoft files included contained digital signatures, signed by Microsoft. These signatures remained intact when distributed via AutoPatcher. The AutoPatcher team also cared deeply about the integrity of the releases, turning down lucrative deals that could have compromised the security of any end users' computers. Any files that did not pass an integrity check (an additional check to the digital signatures) the program would automatically flag the release as unofficial and unsupported, signalling to the end user that something went wrong and that it should not be implicitly trusted. The project was also backed by Neowin.net, a very large community site who wishes to retain a good relationship with Microsoft (although this move on your part has, again, severely damaged relations with both the staff and community members at Neowin) and as such, acted as an additional human oversight on the project, at the first sign of anything shady, for example a user requesting help with a pirated copy of windows, the activity would be halted. This symbiotic relationship benefited all.

Thirdly, it is not always possible, or technically or economically feasible to run MU or WSUS. For example, I often burn AutoPatcher to CD and patch users up when I do house calls to repair, rebuild or install a Windows computer system. Often these users are on dial-up or very low-bandwidth "broadband" (and I use that term lightly) connections. This means that it's very very time consuming and costly to run WU, and carrying around with me a server with WSUS is not even an option. Also, the TCO of a WSUS server is very high, a lot higher than a small computer repair or hobbyist could afford, especially with the market being very competitive. I am aware that Microsoft offers a roll up DVD every month containing that months patches in all languages, including drivers et. al. however, for most AutoPatcher users this is still not an option. These packs are three times the size of the Full AutoPatcher downloads, and contain just one months worth of updates at a time, whereas AutoPatcher would include all of the updates post Service Pack 2. This is a huge waste of both the end-users' bandwidth and Microsoft's bandwidth.

Lastly, in respects to Copyright, as far as I'm aware a copyright owner can authorise distribution on its behalf to an external entity. Why does Microsoft not authorise the AutoPatcher team to redistribute these updates legally? You'd be free to obligate the team to put in place extra safeguards if wanted, at no expense to yourselves.

In summary: The security issue is, in fact, a complete non-issue given the security checks in place, Microsoft-branded alternatives are technically and economically infeasible for the AutoPatcher's target audience and the copyright issue can be solved just with a simple contract. If Microsoft were to allow the AutoPatcher project to continue in its current form, a lot more end-users will be secure from threats that Microsoft has released patches for, thus generating a positive image for the company, and making the Internet a safer place to be connected to.

I 'd also like to point you towards the hostility of many hundreds of disgruntled end users (and these are just the ones who have bothered to voice their opinions), a user by the pseudonym "D" stating that "MicroSHAFT have stuck it to the little guys again", one by the name of "Gion" saying it was a "sad day" that "squeeze their weight on to a very good service and push to close it.". "Jase" suggested that Microsoft were jealous of the service, and "hiflyr" suggested that Microsoft are purposefully "making things harder". (http://www.autopatcher.com/137#comments). The thread announcing the shutdown of the project on Neowin's forums has, at this point, a further 462 comments damning Microsoft's actions.(http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=584427). Matt Asay of C|Net asked "Does Microsoft not trust in its value?". One user very close to the AutoPatcher even mounted a solitary 'protest' outside of the Mcirosoft UK headquarters!

That doesn't sound like goodwill has been stimulated within the tech community to me.

It seems to me that Microsoft has not thoroughly thought through this issue and is simply sticking to its guns to save face regarding this issue.

If you could please respond with an in-depth response in regards to the points I have raised, I would be very grateful.

Regards,

Jack Allnutt

My reply to MS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Panacik    27

Wow :s Thats not good :s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nicholas-c    37

maybe this is why they wanted auto-patcher off the scene

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Panacik    27
maybe this is why they wanted auto-patcher off the scene

It wouldnt surprise me if they started their own "home" version. I know that service packs are suppose to be the same, but it wouldnt surprise me if they created a software packager that compiled the latest updates like AP does. But i also bet they will put a nice chunky price on that software too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
X_Naruto    0

It's sad it's come to this, MS is such a wealthy company, yet threatened so easily...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mousepadtech    0

I just recieved a reply to my concern about halting the progress of Autopatcher. This is what I got

__________________________________________________________________________

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for contacting us about AutoPatcher.

I thank you for taking the time out to send us your thoughts on the AutoPatcher services. However, I would like to provide you with more information on our position.

It is our policy that the distribution of supplemental code such as hotfixes, security updates, and service packs is discouraged. This policy is in place due to concern for the safety and security of our customers, as we can only guarantee the download?s contents when it comes from a Microsoft web site. Distribution of these materials without permission is also an infringement of our copyright.

We try and contact anyone who is in violation of our policy as soon as we can, once we are aware of what they are doing. AutoPatcher is not the only company we have contacted.

We recommend that our customers sign up for Microsoft Update (MU) and enable Automatic Update functionality to receive all updates directly from us. In addition, we have enterprise services such as Windows Server Updates Services (WSUS) that we recommend our enterprise customers to use.

We provide this guidance as it is common to see email scams encouraging people to download our latest patches, but the URL takes them to sites where they are actually exposed to malware. In order to ensure that customers are getting actual Microsoft updates and not malware, we recommend customers get their updates directly from us.

On a separate note, I have seen that you have selected 'The United States' as your country of residence. For more information you may wish to contact your local Microsoft Office on the following link. They will be able to advise you other alternatives to download all the updates simultaneously for your softwarehttp://www.microsoft.com/about/companyinformation/usaoffices/default.mspxb>

I hope this information has answered your query, but if you have any more questions please give us a call on 0870 60 10 100. The lines are open from 8am to 6pm, Monday to Friday, excluding public holidays. If you still have any more questions, please reply to this email.

Many thanks for contacting us.

Kind regards,

GEETHA SHIVAKUMARb>

Customer Service Professional

Microsoft Customer Services

Protect Your PC: Microsoft recommends that you protect your PC from Viruses and Security threats. Please visit our web sithttp://www.microsoft.com/uk/security/protect/alert.mspxb> and follow the steps to stay secure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
X_Naruto    0

Hmm, so it took them 4 (?) years to get on top of this majour "issue"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JiveMasterT    0

I got the same generic e-mail as everyone else. They also told me to contact their USA offices like some other people.

I am not really sure if this is worth pursuing. I'd like to see what the Autopatcher team does in response to all of this - they said something was coming out to deal with this so I want to know what it is before we start a large scale attack on the Microsoft Feedback forms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
warath    0

BTW you do have grounds to challenge this ruling... Anti-competition laws should provide a way... as well as simply putting a large disclaimer on your site stating that these updates are not from Microsoft Directly, blah blah blah...

The more MS idiots do this kind of thing, the more Linux and other alternatives are going to get looked at... one day they will find themselves in a landslide of declining user base!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.