Secunia is going to wrap installers

[hazelnut]

Latest Secunia beta is to wrap popular software with Secunia's own installer.

 

 

https://www.networkw...how-256739.html

 

 

PSI 3.0 takes a totally different approach and aims to deliver security updates that require as little interaction from users as possible. To achieve this, Secunia will wrap a proprietary installer around security patches for hundreds of popular applications in order to suppress their dialog boxes.

 

The security updates will be repackaged manually by Secunia's staff and will be pushed to PSI 3.0 users from the company's server, Kristensen said. However, the company will do this without the explicit approval of all the vendors, which might raise some legal issues.

 

I don't use Secunia and certainly won't now.

[Andavari]

I've never used Secunia. By using a wrapper they'll lose a good amount of people.

[Winapp2.ini]

Ugh, why do companies wrap installers. They even acknowledge the legality (or lack thereof) of it.

[Andavari]

They even acknowledge the legality (or lack thereof) of it.

They can possibly afford to be sued!

[Winapp2.ini]

I guess they're stimulating the global economy then!

[Nergal]

3beta is ugly and has no interface at all (just a big scan button)

There are no preferences, no way to exclude a program, no way to see all of your installed programs

 

here was my reply to the Secunia Community thread

I'm with the majority of the rest of the posters. The Interfaceless design' date=' while "easier to understand" for novices, is terrible. Without the ability to Exclude software (necessary if you run an end of life program), to see all installed programs and versions (multiple occurrences of flash for instance, one in the normal place, one in my html editor, three in my offline files, all need to be updated (copy paste) separately), PSI has become, basically a useless updater that only updates based on security, instead of a powerhouse of patch and program management.

on top of that, I actually often use the so called "useless features" of vuln reports per program,

This all harkens back to the introduction of 2.x which stripped out the simple vs advanced interfaces. The backlash of Oh goodness 2.x is confusing has lead to this lack of any interface.

On top of that I don't want to be autoupdated, there's no way to turn that off. I want my computers to be able to tell me when something, lets say firefox, has been installed on a maalsone aso I can UNINSTALL IT.

Yes, someone can come at me and say "well you should be using CSI, not PSI."

I was informed by Secunia Sales that an operation as small as mine ( <30 computers) wouldn't benefit from the cost basis of CSI and I should continue using PSI on all my machines.

We were pushed off version 1.x, I assume we will at some point be pushed off V2.x fo v3.x.

If this happens I will be forced to stop using PSI all together, which is a shame because it has made my patching duties [b']possible[/b].

 

Here's 2.x

 

here's 3.xbeta

[pwillener]

This topic in the Secunia forum shows what Secunia thinks of their users' opinions:

http://secunia.com/community/forum/thread/show/12257/launch_of_secunia_s_new_personal_software_inspector_takes_private_computer_security_to_the_next_level

[hazelnut]

Well I think that speaks for itself pwilener, they don't care at all.

[Nergal]

lol I'm one of the commenters in the main psi 3 thread (note all replies were removed from the above linked thread)

[TheWebAtom]

in order to suppress their dialog boxes.

 

I think wrapping the installers (in the context) is a good idea. I'm sick of installer dialogs. A "silent" install for updates is a thing of dreams.

[hazelnut]

I don't think wrapping installers is a good idea. I like to be able to see just what I am putting on my machine and I wouldn't trust Secunia to do that without adding something which suits its own agenda.

[Alan_B]

Seconia are totally incompetant.

Even if they have no malicous intent, were they at the end of a fast food counter serving chips then customers would suffer food poisoning.

 

I used their on-line service many years ago.

Before I connected I made a partition image backup incase any application update removed a facility I wanted.

Then I allowed them to scan but NOT update until I had evaluated their proposed updates.

I read the small print and found that BEFORE they performed any expected updates they intended to force an update to something they needed for other updates

I think it was some JAVA thing that had to be updated.

I never permitted them to update,

but after closing down I chose to reboot and examine the event logs to see what they had been doing.

I forget the details, but there were some sort of fatal problem that scared the willies out of me.

Every time I rebooted the fatal errors were refreshed - permanent damage until I restored my backup image and normality resumed.

 

I returned to complain, but I never let them near my machine again.

[Andavari]

I think it was some JAVA thing that had to be updated.

 

That's a red flag all by itself for me.

[Alan_B]

After decades of working on 8 bit and 16 bit real-time computers that never crashed or needed a reset,

I was quite unprepared for the harsh realities of Windows even on a good day.

I am still learning

[Andavari]

I am still learning

 

...and Windows is still crashing!!!

[Alan_B]

...and Windows is still crashing!!!

Nothing is certain but Death and Taxes and Windows Crashes