bad windows optional update woody leonhard

#BAD WINDOWS OPTIONAL UPDATE WOODY LEONHARD WINDOWS 10#
#BAD WINDOWS OPTIONAL UPDATE WOODY LEONHARD WINDOWS 7#
#BAD WINDOWS OPTIONAL UPDATE WOODY LEONHARD SERIES#

I understand their point of view, but ultimately it's like old geezers yelling at the kids to get off the lawn. Insiders complain rather frequently that they're tired of rubbing elbows with less-than-qualified beta testers. Here are the problems I hear about most often. But there are flaws in the structure of the Insider program, and much could be done to improve it - even if the program is a marketing effort instead of a technical one.

#BAD WINDOWS OPTIONAL UPDATE WOODY LEONHARD WINDOWS 10#

Compared to the Kremlin-like approach of the Windows 8 era, Windows 10 has been a typhoon of fresh air. Microsoft releases marketing betas so people have a chance to get an early look, convince their companies to wait for a newer and better product - and in some cases garner bragging rights.ĭon't get me wrong. All of the open betas nowadays are what we used to call 'marketing betas.' Microsoft doesn't release betas to the public in order to ask for comments/suggestions about features. Microsoft doesn't do open betas - never has, at least since the days of Word 2.0.

#BAD WINDOWS OPTIONAL UPDATE WOODY LEONHARD WINDOWS 7#

The Insider program is more of an extended marketing effort, like the 'open' beta that appeared at the end of the Windows 7 dev cycle. Not so - Microsoft has a long history of beta testing programs, both overt and covert, but the Insider program isn't one of them.

#BAD WINDOWS OPTIONAL UPDATE WOODY LEONHARD SERIES#

This series of patches looks more like a Keystone Kops attack.People think of the Windows Insider program as a beta testing program for Windows. Usually out-of-band patches tend to be orderly, released for all versions of Windows at once, highly publicized, and available through the various update services. This isn’t your grandfather’s out-of-band patch. But it certainly set the patching world topsy-turvy.

So why the horrendously sloppy reaction from Microsoft? Why did we get single-purpose manual-install-only patches on Monday, followed by “optional non-security” updates (which clearly include security patches) and Monthly Rollup Previews (with undocumented security patches) on Tuesday?

We seem to hit one or two in the Windows patching game every month. Quite frankly, I don’t see anything about CVE-2019-1367 that makes it any different from dozens of other 0days out there. If there are any attacks out in the open, I sure can’t find them. ( Cyware describes DarkHotel as “a North Korea-linked threat actor group that has been active since at least 2007”). Recently patched IE 0day (CVE-2019-1367) was used by DarkHotel, does not seem related to ongoing discussions re iOS/Android attacks. The closest I’ve come is a little tweet from Costin Raiu, who works at Kaspersky: I’ve been on a quest to see if there are any openly reported exploits that use this week’s bugaboo, CVE-2019-1367. But those cases are very few and far between. That said, there are some times when an exploited vulnerability warrants your immediate attention. Some security folks get worked up about “Exploited: Yes.” Those of us who have been working with Microsoft patches for a while know that, even if a security hole is exploited, there’s frequently no reason for the average Windows customer to quake in their boots. In fact, when Microsoft released its original bunch of September patches a couple of weeks ago, it identified two of them - CVE-2019-1214 and CVE-2019-1215 - as “Exploited: Yes.” A few days later, very quietly, Microsoft turned both of them to “Exploited: No.”

Bad windows optional update woody leonhard