Blocking Windows Update via Router


Recommended Posts

Hi guys,

We've got a bit of an issue at the moment, we're using DeepFreeze to lock down our PCs on the call floor, the issue is that they're all redownloading Windows Updates automatically every morning. Now I'm going to go around and disable this so we can manually do it once every few months but immediately we need to have Windows Update blocked as our internet connection is barely functioning right now.

Can anyone tell me what Domains / Ports etc Windows Update on Windows XP uses?

Thanks

Chris

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/984862-blocking-windows-update-via-router/
Share on other sites

i believe update.microsoft.com is the hostname of the windows update servers, not sure about the port though, leme see if i can track it down (Y)

edit: windows update services use port 80 and 443, lol

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb490846.aspx

Windows update uses the following DNS for updates;

update.microsoft.com

windowsupdate.microsoft.com

you could block these at the firewall if your router supports DNS blocking that would be the simple option i guess.

If you have a Windows Server you could implement a group policy?

EDIT: Riggers beat me to it

Hey guys,

Blocking those two hostnames seams to have done the job for now, well enough at least. I'll update these PCs manually in a few weeks then disable Windows Update on them.

Which group policy are you guys talking about?

They're hooked up to a Server 2008 R2 Domain Controller.

Through Group policy you can control Windows Update, ideally you would do this with WSUS (free) to give you a centralized control of updates allowing you to control what does and what does not get installed

Then when you want to apply an update you OK it in WSUS and all the machines will download it per the scheduling you have already laid out

  On 24/03/2011 at 14:23, Teebor said:

Through Group policy you can control Windows Update, ideally you would do this with WSUS (free) to give you a centralized control of updates allowing you to control what does and what does not get installed

Then when you want to apply an update you OK it in WSUS and all the machines will download it per the scheduling you have already laid out

This, also you can have deepfreeze thaw during a scheduled time period so that updates can be applied. Say between 3am to 5am on thrusdays for example (a time that usually no one is working).

Yeah, controlling Windows Update via Group Policy isn't really worth it, nor is WSUS, When we move to a Windows Multipoint Server base or move from XP to 7 then I'll worry about such things. These machines are used for a basic Java app and nothing else, so updates are barely important, they're even firewalled off from 99.9% of the web.

I'll just let them be and disable automatic updates soon as I get time.

Spending time fixing up PCs from the dark ages isn't my concern, ensuring it doesn't affect the productivity of the office is my concern. lol.

  On 24/03/2011 at 15:59, Vegetunks said:

Yeah, controlling Windows Update via Group Policy isn't really worth it, nor is WSUS, When we move to a Windows Multipoint Server base or move from XP to 7 then I'll worry about such things. These machines are used for a basic Java app and nothing else, so updates are barely important, they're even firewalled off from 99.9% of the web.

I'll just let them be and disable automatic updates soon as I get time.

Spending time fixing up PCs from the dark ages isn't my concern, ensuring it doesn't affect the productivity of the office is my concern. lol.

30 min gets you wsus and the appropriate group policies in place (even to disable windows updates for those specific machines, this would take 5 min if you have a domain). Dunno how it isnt worth it. Dunno how WSUS isn't worth free.

computer configuration

admin templates

windows components

windows update

Configure automatic updates

"If the status is set to Disabled, any updates that are available on Windows Update must be downloaded and installed manually. To do this, go to http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com or click Start, click Programs (or click All Programs), and then click Windows Update."

This is a computer setting so it applies only to computers, add the computers that you want to apply this gpo to not the users within the group policy management console in active directory.

On the Domain Controller, Start, Administrative tools, Group Policy Management Console.

Make a new group policy under the main domain name, edit the policy. I will provide screen shots in my next post, I will start getting them done now.

when you are in the group policy management console, you single click on the policy on right it displays scope tab, at the bottom of the scope tab there is security filtering. add computers in there. You will have to modify the object type to include computers to be able to add them.

then on a computer that is going to be effected by the group policy you can force it to apply by going to a command prompt and typing in:

gpupdate

to verify that this has been applied you can either use the gpresults command or going to start run rsop.msc and navigating to the windows update section. All pcs will follow suit within 15-45 min, you may want to schedule a one time thaw so that these updates can take place and be in there always, even after a reboot.

Very powerful the group policies are, I would suggest making group policies as granular as possible. They can really lock down a computer. The computer configuration section applies to computers, the user configuration section applies to users. If you change something to the computer configuration and try to apply that to users it will will not apply and if you change something in the user configuration and have that apply to computers it will not apply.

You can make groups and apply policies to groups (you can put computers in a group).

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • I use Outlook Classic but after decades it still doesn’t support Google Calendar and Contacts properly (not a big issue for me but is for some of my clients) and doesn’t have unified mailboxes to aggrigate multiple mail accounts.
    • Lol, replacing a wav file is that difficult for a software giant? Must be one of their devs that set some permissions/restrictions on it...
    • Sure, let them keep building for "most", I'm in no rush to buy such unreliable disposable vehicles...
    • Chrome extension blocks social media until you scream "I'm a loser" by David Uzondu Social media addiction is a problem that affects millions, with studies suggesting roughly 10% of Americans are hooked and hundreds of millions more are dealing with it around the world. We have seen some creative ways to reduce their reliance on social media, like the one we reported on recently about using an $8 smart plug to physically block websites. Now, a new Chrome extension takes the concept of adding friction to a completely new level of personal humiliation. The extension, called Scream to Unlock, was created by developer Pankaj Tanwar. He made a Show HN post on Hacker News today explaining that regular site blockers were just not annoying enough to work for him. His solution forces you to enable your microphone and screech "I'm a loser" to get access to sites like X, Facebook, and Instagram. The louder you yell, the more time the extension grants you. Once you install it, trying to visit a blocked site brings up a stark "Access Restricted" message. You are then prompted to perform your self-deprecating chant. After you give in and yell the phrase, the extension grants you access for a set amount of time. The concept is built on you being too embarrassed to yell. And boy, you have to be loud to please it. If your scream's volume is under 30, the extension mocks you with, "You sound like a mouse!". Getting above that might earn you a "Not bad, but you can do better!", while a truly powerful yell (100% volume and above) gets you an "AMAZING! That was an epic scream!". During my own test, I yelled the phrase at what felt like a respectable volume, only to get the mouse treatment. It granted me a measly 23 seconds on X. So if you are interested in this extension, for God's sake, do not try it in an office. Your coworkers will probably think you have finally lost it and are performing some bizarre humiliation ritual at your desk. The Chrome extension's description on the Chrome Web Store claims that all audio processing happens locally and no data is collected. That is not entirely true. Digging into the code, Neowin noticed that it uses window.SpeechRecognition to handle speech recognition. In Chrome, this API sends your voice data to Google's servers for processing. So while Tanwar himself might not be collecting your data, you should be aware of Google's involvement.
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      solidox earned a badge
      First Post
    • First Post
      BA the Curmudgeon earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Year In
      blissa jayden earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Month Later
      blissa jayden earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      blissa jayden earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      575
    2. 2
      ATLien_0
      216
    3. 3
      +FloatingFatMan
      170
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      152
    5. 5
      Som
      151
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!