Windows 10 shares your WIFI

[JEDIYoda]

More of this OMG the sky is falling and its all Microsofts fault...hahaaaaaa

 

[TeknoBug]

Uncheck what box? Wifi is not shared by default.

I did a fresh install on my laptop, and yup it IS enabled by default.

 

[Anteaus]

I did a fresh install on my laptop, and yup it IS enabled by default.

WIFI Sensing is not. I believe you are talking about peer-to-peer update transfers which is a completely different thing and that is turned on by default.

The irony is that MS is doing what Blizzard has been doing with World of Warcraft for many years now by implementing peer-to-peer file sharing.
I'm not in insinuating that you yourself game or should accept it...my point is that peer-to-peer updating is well established in the industry and that MS wasn't the inventor nor the first to use it.

 

[Jaskalas]

The irony is that MS is doing what Blizzard has been doing with World of Warcraft for many years now by implementing peer-to-peer file sharing.
I'm not in insinuating that you yourself game or should accept it...my point is that peer-to-peer updating is well established in the industry and that MS wasn't the inventor nor the first to use it.

The difference is I choose to run the B.net app.
It's front and center in my face and I can close it if I want my bandwidth for something else.

 

[Anteaus]

The difference is I choose to run the B.net app.
It's front and center in my face and I can close it if I want my bandwidth for something else.

And you can choose to not use peer-to-peer.

You choose to use battle.net and it defaults to peer-to-peer, which requires you to change a setting to turn it off.

You choose to use Windows 10 and it defaults to peer-to-peer, which requires you to change a setting to turn it off.

They are identical scenarios. Your declaring it to be different is patently false. The only tangible difference is that Battle.net shares with everyone or no one, whereas Windows 10 at least gives you the option to restrict it to your local intranet in addition to outright turning it off.

You can choose to not run Windows, so let's not act like your forced into some sort of corner. Ubuntu and Debian Linux are perfectly viable if you'd prefer more control.

 

[Mushkins]

I just had a look, wifi sense is enabled by default but it only works when your entire Windows is logged into a MS account, if you are using a local account (which you should be, IMO) then it shouldn't work.

This kind of feature really is not necessary at all, I hope MS gets that message.

That's interesting, it was Disabled by default when I upgraded to Win10 the other day.

 

[quikah]

I did a fresh install on my laptop, and yup it IS enabled by default.

Your wifi is shared by default? That is a bug, report it to MS.

Wifi Sense <> Wifi sharing. Wifi sharing is a PART of wifi sense. You can have Wifi Sense enabled and not share any Wifi networks.

 

[artemicion]

WIFI Sensing is not. I believe you are talking about peer-to-peer update transfers which is a completely different thing and that is turned on by default.

The irony is that MS is doing what Blizzard has been doing with World of Warcraft for many years now by implementing peer-to-peer file sharing.
I'm not in insinuating that you yourself game or should accept it...my point is that peer-to-peer updating is well established in the industry and that MS wasn't the inventor nor the first to use it.

One concern I'd have with P2P on the OS-level is that you're dealing with sensitive data. If someone screws up my b.net data--whatevs, reinstall WoW. If someone screws up my Windows Update data that borks my entire OS, losing all my data and forcing me to reinstall, I'm going to be pissed.

The other concern is a security by obscurity issue. I'm less worried about b.net since not that many people have it on their computers and the people do probably don't have the valuable data hackers are looking for. I'd be more worried about P2P that is enabled by default on the world's most popular OS that will be installed on many business computers with valuable data targeted by hackers.

Finally there's a file integrity issue. From what I've heard, corrupted data occurs more frequently in p2p that with direct downloads. I do wonder about the probability that Windows Updates receives corrupt data through p2p as opposed to direct download. I also wonder about whether Windows Update has any built-in file integrity checks and how effective they are. (I also wonder how hard it would be for a malicious person to deliberately poison Windows Updates by sharing corrupt update data with others that will pass a file integrity check. And potentially bork your computer by corrupting an important OS file.) I've gotten corrupt patch data on b.net before that caused some irregular behavior. Again, not a big deal when you're dealing with a video game. Potentially a huge deal when you're dealing with your OS.

 

[Anteaus]

One concern I'd have with P2P on the OS-level is that you're dealing with sensitive data. If someone screws up my b.net data--whatevs, reinstall WoW. If someone screws up my Windows Update data that borks my entire OS, losing all my data and forcing me to reinstall, I'm going to be pissed.

The other concern is a security by obscurity issue. I'm less worried about b.net since not that many people have it on their computers and the people do probably don't have the valuable data hackers are looking for. I'd be more worried about P2P that is enabled by default on the world's most popular OS that will be installed on many business computers with valuable data targeted by hackers.

Finally there's a file integrity issue. From what I've heard, corrupted data occurs more frequently in p2p that with direct downloads. I do wonder about the probability that Windows Updates receives corrupt data through p2p as opposed to direct download. I also wonder about whether Windows Update has any built-in file integrity checks and how effective they are. (I also wonder how hard it would be for a malicious person to deliberately poison Windows Updates by sharing corrupt update data with others that will pass a file integrity check. And potentially bork your computer by corrupting an important OS file.) I've gotten corrupt patch data on b.net before that caused some irregular behavior. Again, not a big deal when you're dealing with a video game. Potentially a huge deal when you're dealing with your OS.

You make a solid point. I'd redirect it toward the Windows 10 update software in general and not the peer-to-peer aspect. The bottom line is that if MS intends to use peer-to-peer sharing as a mechanism to improve windows update delivery, then they will need to take a more assertive role in both QC and certification. It's too early to tell whether MS is up to the task yet. My guess is that by the end of the year we will have more options as to how Win10 is updated. My prediction is that security updates will likely be mandatory, but everything else will be optional. Win10Pro already has the ability to defer non-security related updates so its a start.

I think the Windows Update application is very lackluster and doesn't provide near enough information about what it is downloading and whether it is actively applying updates or not. There should be something, an icon or whatnot, that I can look at that tells me what it's doing. Yesterday I was getting anomalously high drive I/O and had no idea why until I looked at the updates and saw it installed some. I don't mind mandatory updating...I do mind having it done in such a way where I don't get notified until after it is completed. Also, I'm confused as to why some updates failed to install and others didn't. Was it a bug or were they deemed unnecessary? These are where my criticisms sit....possible security holes due to WIFI sharing is low on my list of things to worry about right now. I just turn that stuff off and ignore it. None of this is pushing me away, but for me this is something that needs attention in the first couple major updates.

Other than the updater and a need for new drivers, I've been pleased with Win10.

 

[Ramses]

They are trying their best to make updates seamless and blind I think, and that's probly just fine for most people not posting on a tech forum since at least they get them now instead of a jacked up computer for something there was a fix released for a year ago.
Every one of you that works on people computers has sat down at one and groaned when it has fiftyhundredmillion updates not installed and is full of malware and BS that could have been at least partially avoided with up to date patching, can you imagine how frustrating and expensive it is for MS to fix stuff (when they do) and then have it STILL be grief and bad PR because people don't use the fix? Absolutely there are growing pains, but mandatory security updates, without asking, in the background, I'm down with that. As a geek I'd like to be involved, but I'll suck it up for the sake of making computers safer and saving hours when I do have to work on one. Yes they are going to screw things up from time to time, they are as human as you or I, but it's a step in the right direction imo.

As to the p2p updates, is it really that hard to verify file integrity? We've been swapping movies and music and software for decades that way and it seems just fine, as long as they are responsible about it I don't see a problem really. I've no doubt some crazy russian hacker or such will find a way to screw it up for everyone from time to time, but I don't think that's a reason not to move forward, only be vigilant.

I'm actually pretty surprised at the big steps MS has taken on several fronts with 10. They are making people think (and complain lol) and I'm sure are spawning ideas for new ways to do things. And that's what progress is about, even if one individual idea does not work out. Look at Google(i'm sure MS has), they have been using us all as beta testers from pretty much day 1 and it's pushed the tech world forward. I'm up for some trouble if it means progress myself.

 

[artemicion]

As to the p2p updates, is it really that hard to verify file integrity? We've been swapping movies and music and software for decades that way and it seems just fine, as long as they are responsible about it I don't see a problem really. I've no doubt some crazy russian hacker or such will find a way to screw it up for everyone from time to time, but I don't think that's a reason not to move forward, only be vigilant.

Not necessarily, but assuming they're using hash checks to check file integrity, it's not hard to "break" a hash check and come up with garbage data that will spit out the same string from a hash check. Like I said, I'm not familiar with what safeguards MS has put in place for Windows Update, so maybe it's fine. But I'm at least wary that a malicious user could corrupt someone else's Win10 install by seeding out garbage data for an update. (I've heard stories of media companies doing this with torrents to try to prevent piracy, i.e, seeding data for the latest Taylor Swift album with garbage data to corrupt the files shared to others).

And corrupting music/movie data isn't that big a deal, 99% of the time if there's a couple of bits flipped in the middle of a music/video file, it'll just manifest as a weird blip or distortion in the middle of the video or song. I imagine if bits are flipped in the middle of an important OS file, the consequences can be much more severe.

 

[Ramses]

I agree the possibility is there to do something malicious. For someone somewhere.
No way to find out how it'll work without throwing it out there and trying it though, I'm reasonably sure MS has people smarter than me working on this stuff, and I've thought of it so surely they have lol..

 

[lucia]

I don't need to be clinically paranoid for wanting my privacy.