• GreeNRG@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    295
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    Since rolling back to the previous configuration will present a challenge, affected users will be faced with finding out just how effective their backup strategy is or paying for the required license and dealing with all the changes that come with Windows Server 2025.

    Accidentally force your customers to have to spend money to upgrade, how convenient.

    • Dremor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      200
      ·
      9 days ago

      Congratulation, you are being upgraded. Please do not resist. And pay while we are at it.

    • Maestro@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      83
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 days ago

      Since MS forced the upgrade, you should get 2025 for free. That would probably be really easy to argue in court

      • boonhet@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        80
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        9 days ago

        Ah, but did you read the article?

        MS didn’t force it, Heimdal auto-updated it for their customers based on the assumption that Microsoft would label the update properly instead of it being labeled as a regular security patch. Microsoft however made a mistake (on purpose or not? Who knows…) in labeling it.

        • MaggiWuerze@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          94
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 days ago

          Then it’s still on Microsoft for pushing that update through what is essentially a patch pipeline

          • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            8 days ago

            MS will be sued over this and they will lose. This is not an ambiguous case. They fucked up. It’s essentially an unconsentual/unilateral alteration to a contract, which kinda violates the principle of, you know, a contract.

          • boonhet@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            33
            ·
            8 days ago

            It is, but they never forced anyone to take the update, so that might save their asses, or it might not

            • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              52
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              8 days ago

              This would be no different to you ordering food in a restaurant, them bringing you the wrong meal, you refusing because you didn’t order it, then they tell you to go fuck yourself and charge you for it anyway.

              If this argument is valid in your judicial system then you live in a clown world capitalist dictatorship.

              • Maestro@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                41
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                8 days ago

                Have you seen the state of the US? A “clown world capitalist dictatorship” is a pretty apt description

              • boonhet@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                8 days ago

                I’m saying they might send people the bill and then these people (well, companies) are going to have to fight it in court, where they’ll be right for sure, but Microsoft can make a lot of stupid arguments to prolong the whole thing, to the point where it’s cheaper to pay the license fee. For one they could say that continued use of the operating system constitutes agreement to licenses and pricing.

                Either way this is server 2025 not windows 12. We’re talking about companies here, not people.

                • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 days ago

                  Yes, and I’m saying that the fact this could even be viewed by Microsoft as something that is worth going to trial, and being argued in court = hyper-capitalist dystopian dictatorship.

                  In a sane world not “by and for corporations”, this tactic would not even be in the realm of plausibility.

            • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              8 days ago

              M$'s mistake creates no obligation to pay, either way. They cannot sue anyone for the extra money.

              But some customers (depending on their legislation) might sue M$ to make broken systems running again, for example if these systems have stopped now with a ‘missing license’ error message.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 days ago

      Uh, if they didn’t ask for it, how is Microsoft going to make them pay for it?

  • MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    98
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    8 days ago

    Misleading title. It was installed by a third-party updater, Heimdall, but MS labeled a Windows 11 update wrong.

      • ditty@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 days ago

        Yet another reason to not do auto-updates in an enterprise environment for mission-critical services.

        • superkret@feddit.orgOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          40
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 days ago

          In an enterprise environment, you rely on a service that tracks CVEs, analyzes which ones apply to your environment, and prioritizes security critical updates.
          The issue here is that one of these services installed a release upgrade because Microsoft mislabelled it as security update.

            • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              edit-2
              8 days ago

              Pre-prod is ideal, but a pipe dream for many. Lots of folks barely get prod.

              We still stagger patching so things like this only wipe some of the critical infrastructure, but that still causes needless issues.

            • SomeGuy69@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 days ago

              For security updates in critical infrastructure, no. You want that right away, in best case instant. You can’t risk a zero day being used to kill people.

              • Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                6 days ago

                Even security updates can be uncritical or supercritical. Consult the patch notes or get burned lol

      • Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        Do you know that’s not a mistake and done fully malicously knowing that? Please give me your source.

          • Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            6 days ago

            And you make absolutely no error?

            Besides that:
            Should MS have caught the errorenous ID (assuming it truly was errourneous and not knowingly falsely labeled)? Absolutely. Should the patch management team blindly release all updates that MS releases? No?

  • Aceticon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    91
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    8 days ago

    I’m truly, totally, completely shocked … that Windows is still being used on the server side.

    • Hobo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      61
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      A bunch of enterprise services are Windows only. Also Active Directory is by far the best and easiest way to manage users and computers in an org filled with a bunch of end users on Windows desktops. Not to mention the metric shitload of legacy internal asp applications…

    • uniquethrowagay@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      8 days ago

      We run a lot of Windows servers for specialized applications that don’t really have viable alternatives. It sucks, but it’s the same reason we use Windows clients.

    • ikidd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 days ago

      Basically AD and the workstation management that uses it. Could all be run on a VM and snapshotted because you know it’s going to fuck up an update eventually. Perhaps SQL Server but that’s getting harder to justify the expense of anymore.

  • Kokesh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    It must have been the same fun as when back in 2012 (or 2013?) McAfee (at least I think it was them) identified /system32 as a threat and deleted it :)

  • DirkMcCallahan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 days ago

    I know this has nothing to do with my home computer, but this just further affirms my decision to switch to Linux earlier this year.

  • CriticalMiss@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    8 days ago

    Hate to be that guy but if you automatically patch critical infrastructure or apply patches without reading their description first, you kinda did it to yourself. There’s a very good reason not a single Linux distribution patches itself (by default) and wants you to read and understand the packages you’re updating and their potential effects on your system

    • Gimpydude@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      8 days ago

      While you are generally correct, in this case the release notes labeled this as a security update and not an OS upgrade. The fault for this is Microsoft’s not the sysadmin.

    • festus@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      7 days ago

      Many distros (at least Ubuntu) auto-installs security updates, and here a mislabeled “security update” was auto-installed. This is not the fault of the sysadmins.

      • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        here a mislabeled “security update” was auto-installed.

        To be fair, you would have to read all the way to the first paragraph to get this information from the article. Hard to blame people for not knowing this critical bit of information when it was buried so deep

    • rumba@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 days ago

      There’s a lot of people out there running automation to keep their servers secure. Well I agree any automation out there should be able to flag and upgrade excluded, It would seem to me like Microsoft should own some of the blame for a full ass hard to uninstall OS update fed in with the same stream and without it interaction. I kind of expect my OS in stall pop up a window and say hey a****** this is going to upgrade your system, are you cool with that. I don’t know how it works these days but I know back in the day going between versions you would have to refresh your licensing on a large upgrade.

      • CriticalMiss@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 days ago

        Unlike with other OSes Microsoft releases all of their patches on Tuesday at around the same time in one big batch. I spend my Tuesday morning reading the patch descriptions and selectively applying them. A method that hasn’t failed me once.

        • rumba@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          Yeah, I’m using Ninja on about 120 boxes. It’s set to auth critical only. If someone reports a problem, we’ll go ahead and blacklist that update temporarily while we sorted out even though it’s semi-automated they never happen all at once there’s always a couple of canaries that get up a little early.

    • superkret@feddit.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      7 days ago

      We have an app running on CentOS 6. The vendor of the app informed us they expect to have a new version that can run on RHEL 8 by the end of the year - 2025.