MS Windows Update suffers multi-day outage

Security update backlogs all round...


Microsoft's Windows Update site has been experiencing severe problems in the past week, and numerous users have been unable to access the site. According to several people who've contacted The Register, problems began on Thursday and carried on through Friday. Over the weekend it does seem to have been possible to access the site, but they report that it was unreliable.

At the moment, however, it seems to have gone off again. Three attempts by The Register to download critical updates for a Windows 2000 machine resulted in an attempt to start the download, then an apparent timeout followed by a blank "the following updates were not installed" message. As indeed they were not.

A discussion thread at Winnetmag.com indicates that the problems have been going on since Thursday, and that they apply to all the Windows Update-enabled Windows platforms.

An email response from tech support on Thursday implied that the problem was excess load, but a suggested workaround makes it sound like something more complicated is going on. According to a post from a Microsoft employee, Windows Update wasn't available through some ISPs' DNS servers, and he recommended switching DNS to 198.6.1.1 and 198.6.1.2. These are UU.NET DNS servers, which presumably could be guaranteed to have the right records for Windows Update on them.

Other ISPs having the wrong DNS records could be explained by someone having updated the relevant records wrongly, as happened to The Register during Christmas week. If, say, you switch the IP address of your server you need to update the record to the new one, and it will take up to 48 hours for the update to roll across the web. Switching to these servers does seem to work, but if it were simply the case of Microsoft having to correct an error of this sort we ought to be entirely through the problems by now, so there must be other forces at work.

As The Register is now aware that we're minus two critical security updates, we'll keep on trying... ®


Other stories you might like

  • DigitalOcean tries to take sting out of price hike with $4 VM
    Cloud biz says it is reacting to customer mix largely shifting from lone devs to SMEs

    DigitalOcean attempted to lessen the sting of higher prices this week by announcing a cut-rate instance aimed at developers and hobbyists.

    The $4-a-month droplet — what the infrastructure-as-a-service outfit calls its virtual machines — pairs a single virtual CPU with 512 MB of memory, 10 GB of SSD storage, and 500 GB a month in network bandwidth.

    The launch comes as DigitalOcean plans a sweeping price hike across much of its product portfolio, effective July 1. On the low-end, most instances will see pricing increase between $1 and $16 a month, but on the high-end, some products will see increases of as much as $120 in the case of DigitalOceans’ top-tier storage-optimized virtual machines.

    Continue reading
  • GPL legal battle: Vizio told by judge it will have to answer breach-of-contract claims
    Fine-print crucially deemed contractual agreement as well as copyright license in smartTV source-code case

    The Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) has won a significant legal victory in its ongoing effort to force Vizio to publish the source code of its SmartCast TV software, which is said to contain GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 copyleft-licensed components.

    SFC sued Vizio, claiming it was in breach of contract by failing to obey the terms of the GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 licenses that require source code to be made public when certain conditions are met, and sought declaratory relief on behalf of Vizio TV owners. SFC wanted its breach-of-contract arguments to be heard by the Orange County Superior Court in California, though Vizio kicked the matter up to the district court level in central California where it hoped to avoid the contract issue and defend its corner using just federal copyright law.

    On Friday, Federal District Judge Josephine Staton sided with SFC and granted its motion to send its lawsuit back to superior court. To do so, Judge Staton had to decide whether or not the federal Copyright Act preempted the SFC's breach-of-contract allegations; in the end, she decided it didn't.

    Continue reading
  • US brings first-of-its-kind criminal charges of Bitcoin-based sanctions-busting
    Citizen allegedly moved $10m-plus in BTC into banned nation

    US prosecutors have accused an American citizen of illegally funneling more than $10 million in Bitcoin into an economically sanctioned country.

    It's said the resulting criminal charges of sanctions busting through the use of cryptocurrency are the first of their kind to be brought in the US.

    Under the United States' International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEA), it is illegal for a citizen or institution within the US to transfer funds, directly or indirectly, to a sanctioned country, such as Iran, Cuba, North Korea, or Russia. If there is evidence the IEEA was willfully violated, a criminal case should follow. If an individual or financial exchange was unwittingly involved in evading sanctions, they may be subject to civil action. 

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022