Windows 10 sends your PC data 5500 times to Microsoft and Non-Private IPs

[Ex14]

Btw its been debunked http://www.windowscentral.com/no-windows-10-not-spying-your-pc-thousands-times-day you guys can take off those tin foil hats now

 

[Nowak]

31 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

The point of the post was not a complaint about integration, but that the integration brings Microsoft money - and so Windows 10 is not being given freely out of generosity, but to profit the company.

Well, of course. Microsoft is not a non-profit enterprise.

 

And I can't believe how many people fell for this. A broadcast address? Network Time Protocol? DNS lookups? The default gateway? Amazing, simply amazing. Under the "researcher's" logic, just simply connecting to the internet is spying x)

[Trik'Stari]

5 minutes ago, Ex14 said:

Btw its been debunked http://www.windowscentral.com/no-windows-10-not-spying-your-pc-thousands-times-day you guys can take off those tin foil hats now

 

Right, because M$ says so, we should just believe them.

 

Either they can show us what data is being collected, or they can piss off. Yes, this test is absurb because this is just counting how many times it retries to connect, when a connection failed. But the bigger issue here is that it's the enterprise grade version, where you are supposed to be able to turn things like telemetry, and forced automatic updates, off. Why? Because in an enterprise grade environment, those things are a security risk.

 

That's the issue here.

[Nowak]

Just now, Trik'Stari said:

Right, because M$ says so, we should just believe them.

 

Either they can show us what data is being collected, or they can piss off. Yes, this test is absurb because this is just counting how many times it retries to connect, when a connection failed. But the bigger issue here is that it's the enterprise grade version, where you are supposed to be able to turn things like telemetry, and forced automatic updates, off. Why? Because in an enterprise grade environment, those things are a security risk.

 

That's the issue here.

The problem is that the "researcher" claimed that a bunch of normal things like Windows sending a packet to a broadcast address to tell other computers it exists on the network, the Windows activation server, Network Time Protocol, DNS queries and even the default gateway are spying. It's kinda clear the guy knows nothing about networking if he thinks a broadcast address and even his router's IP address are Microsoft IPs.

[Trik'Stari]

Just now, Daring said:

The problem is that the "researcher" claimed that a bunch of normal things like Windows sending a packet to a broadcast address to tell other computers it exists on the network, the Windows activation server, Network Time Protocol, DNS queries and even the default gateway are spying. It's kinda clear the guy knows nothing about networking if he thinks a broadcast address and even his router's IP address are Microsoft IPs.

If you read through the posts he made, he did say "this is fairly unscientific" etc. etc.

 

And it appears he has deleted all his posts. So I guess it's a pointless topic now.

[Nowak]

5 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

If you read through the posts he made, he did say "this is fairly unscientific" etc. etc.

 

And it appears he has deleted all his posts. So I guess it's a pointless topic now.

He probably realized his research was incredibly bad, confused a lot of normal Windows connections for telemetry and didn't want his username to be attached to it. Too bad the internet never forgets.

[Trik'Stari]

2 minutes ago, Daring said:

He probably realized his research was incredibly bad, confused a lot of normal Windows connections for telemetry and didn't want his username to be attached to it. Too bad the internet never forgets.

Indeed.

[vanished]

59 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Right, because M$ says so, we should just believe them.

It's not Microsoft, it's an independent site, which itself is referencing ZDnet, which got it's info from actually looking at the results from the original "study" that erroneously concluded that Windows was sending stuff to MS 5500 times in a few hours.

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

54 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Right, because M$ says so, we should just believe them.

 

Either they can show us what data is being collected, or they can piss off. Yes, this test is absurb because this is just counting how many times it retries to connect, when a connection failed. But the bigger issue here is that it's the enterprise grade version, where you are supposed to be able to turn things like telemetry, and forced automatic updates, off. Why? Because in an enterprise grade environment, those things are a security risk.

 

That's the issue here.

 

First, a quote from Ed Bott (ZDNet):

Quote

Actual network administrators configuring Windows 10 Enterprise have hundreds of Group Policy options at their disposal, including fine-grained controls over telemetry and privacy settings. There's even a fourth option, not available to users of retail and OEM Windows 10 editions, that dials telemetry back to an absolute minimum. There is no evidence that Mr. Crust is aware of these options.

So these options do in-fact exist, but is conveniently omitted from the original article. I am sorry, but I call that Forbes article what it is, pure propaganda and fear mongering.

 

Second, the ability for enterprise users to disable updates has nothing at all to do with security. They do not want the updates to break the software they are using. The software that they develop is not the regular half-witted programs that you install on to your gaming PCs. To them, every single byte matters, every thread matters, and every system call matters. Changing any of these out of the blue and you can risk catastrophic hardware failures with the systems that everybody (in general) relies on. The modern military equipment, for example, would end up hurting or even killing their own users. There are already many examples of this happening, such as with Therac-25. It is also for this reason that the higher level users are stuck with hardware from 2003.

[Nowak]

16 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

It's not Microsoft, it's an independent site, which itself is referencing ZDnet, which got it's info from actually looking at the results from the original "study" that erroneously concluded that Windows was sending stuff to MS 5500 times in a few hours.

Wasn't it Forbes that reported info obtained from a Voat post that erroneously concluded that Windows was sending stuff to MS 5500 times in a few hours? ZDnet just tore apart the "study".

[vanished]

Just now, Daring said:

Wasn't it Forbes that reported info obtained from a Voat post that erroneously concluded that Windows was sending stuff to MS 5500 times in a few hours? ZDnet just tore apart the "study".

Yes, that's what I'm saying.  Sorry, I guess I wasn't very clear.

 

The original article saying the 5500 connections was debunked by ZDnet, and that ZDnet article was then copied basically onto the windows central site.  I'm saying that the windows central site is in fact not an official Microsoft statement

[Nowak]

2 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Yes, that's what I'm saying.  Sorry, I guess I wasn't very clear.

 

The original article saying the 5500 connections was debunked by ZDnet, and that ZDnet article was then copied basically onto the windows central site.  I'm saying that the windows central site is in fact not an official Microsoft statement

I know that Windows Central isn't an official Microsoft site. Been following it for years. But yeah, it amazes me how many people fell for the Forbes article, considering how flaky the "study" is.

[vanished]

3 minutes ago, Daring said:

I know that Windows Central isn't an official Microsoft site.

Never said you did; I was quoting someone else - look again

 

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

9 minutes ago, Daring said:

I know that Windows Central isn't an official Microsoft site. Been following it for years. But yeah, it amazes me how many people fell for the Forbes article, considering how flaky the "study" is.

Neophobia, in a nutshell.

[GoodBytes]

OMG my head hurts when I read Forbes stupid article.

Thank you ZDNet for explaining to everyone how networking works.

 

Seriously Forbes... it is like you got some journalist with 0 understanding of computers, found some free network analysis tool and tries to analyze things and make a story without even getting a book.

 

Assuming that Windows 10 WAS spying on you, trust me guys, as a developer, if Windows 10 did that... WOW... I don't even think if Microsoft outsourced the whole OS developing on the cheap, the coding and design would be this bad.

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

Just now, GoodBytes said:

OMG my head hurts when I read Forbes stupid article.

Thank you ZDNet for explaining to everyone how networking works.

 

Seriously Forbes... it is like you got some journalist with 0 understanding of computers, found some free network analysis tool and tries to analyze things and make a story without even getting a book.

 

Assuming that Windows 10 WAS spying on you, trust me guys, as a developer, if Windows 10 did that... WOW... I don't even think if Microsoft outsourced the whole OS developing on the cheap, the coding and design would be this bad.

 

One factor in this is that if this was such a big issue, then it would have been very easy to pick up on and study with the high-level and credible groups. Yet up to now, no such thing has happened in the past 6 or so months. If none of such groups are even bothering to post data on the matter, then is it really such a big issue as people are claiming it to be? I did not think do.

 

The funny part is, the people who venomously believe that Microsoft is up to no good (including certain members) do not have a single answer to this and thus try their best to evade this massive logical hole. This leads back to ignorance fueled by neophobia.

[Guest]

On 10/2/2016 at 4:01 AM, Trik'Stari said:

The simple fact is, this is the Enterprise grade version of Windows 10, and it is doing things that you have no control over. As a result, it is not secure, and no Network Admin with any kind of intelligence is going to suggest using it.

What are you going on about? You have more control through group policy in an Enterprise OS version than you do any other with the exception perhaps of Embeded.

On 10/2/2016 at 5:24 AM, suicidalfranco said:

be smart: hypervise.

What is that meant to achieve?

[suicidalfranco]

9 minutes ago, Windspeed36 said:

 

What is that meant to achieve?

more control

[byalexandr]

22 hours ago, evilarceus said:

Well, 5500 is the number of problems in Windows 10.

Name one of them.

 

I haven't had a single problem in Windows 10.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

more control

Over what?

[suicidalfranco]

Just now, Windspeed36 said:

Over what?

over w10 confined in a vm

[Guest]

1 minute ago, suicidalfranco said:

over w10 confined in a vm

What are you trying to achieve? It will be no different to running it on a bare box.

[MeshFile]

Forbes did make a mistake by making it sound worse, but the user who did the testing with 8 and 30 hours traffic monitoring on his win10 enterprise install did it to answer his own question: what connections would the OS try to connect on a fresh install? He did get his answer and it helped me add some more subnets (excluding the local networks) to block for an inbound/outbound rule.

 

As for me, I'll still happily break windows services on my network. I don't care if it's onedrive, windows update, google analytics, etc. They don't own the interface my router is using.

[suicidalfranco]

Just now, Windspeed36 said:

What are you trying to achieve? It will be no different to running it on a bare box.

not giving direct control over the hardware

knowing that i can trust the host file in the hypervisor

snapshots too easily revert back to a previous state

portability

and it's the most convenient way to keep w as just a game system while doing everything else privately on your hv distro (why reboot when you can use both systems at the same time)

[SilicateWielder]

On 2/10/2016 at 1:11 AM, AluminiumTech said:

No comment!

 

-Steals sign-

 

Seriously though, what is Microsoft hiding here? I really hope Linux gets more complete software support, and fast!

This does explain some suspected odd behavior with my hard drive though...