Shoutbox

When they forced us to update

quote:

---

Originally posted by kabso 5
When they forced us to update

---

yup, correct....

Which leads me to think the security update was in part for this disabled link issue. As some (incl. me) have said before, they disabled linking because they had to react quickly. The only possible way for them at that time was to disable the feature
(they can enable/disable features on their part. Messenger will always contact the servers first before enabling a feature on your end, winks, sounds, etc can all be disabled by MS on a moment's notice). Since updating the client takes time (everything needs to be programmed -of course- and everything is tested again in all possible scenarios and that takes a long time) and not everybody would update by themselfs it was the only (and quite frankly logic imho) way at that moment.

And now, after some time, they fixed it, tested it and released a mandatory update... It all makes sense...

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised

quote:

---

Originally posted by kabso 5
When they forced us to update

---

yup, correct....

Which leads me to think the security update was in part for this disabled link issue. As some (incl. me) have said before, they disabled linking because they had to react quickly. The only possible way for them at that time was to disable the feature
(they can enable/disable features on their part. Messenger will always contact the servers first before enabling a feature on your end, winks, sounds, etc can all be disabled by MS on a moment's notice). Since updating the client takes time (everything needs to be programmed -of course- and everything is tested again in all possible scenarios and that takes a long time) and not everybody would update by themselfs it was the only (and quite frankly logic imho) way at that moment.

And now, after some time, they fixed it, tested it and released a mandatory update... It all makes sense...

---

Yeah, but I wish they could've designed it that people already using b8117 wouldn't be affected and could continue using their Messenger with links enabled... I mean, I have been using b8117 since it came out (it's last May isn't it), but my links were still disabled even though b8117 supposedly wouldn't be anything wrong

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mnjul
but my links were still disabled

---

Did you try redownloading and installing 8117?

Nah, I mean my links were still disabled for the "period" when everybody's links were disabled.

Yes, because the global serverside switch was still set to "disable links".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mnjul
Nah, I mean my links were still disabled for the "period" when everybody's links were disabled.

---

hmmm, that means their 'enable/disable features remotely' thingie isn't version/build specific I guess... They probably thought it was justified since not a lot of people were already using that build. Either disable it all, or have the risk that the worm would spread like wild fire... could be that, maybe not, who knows...

This said, then I wonder why they didn't force update everybody in that case from the beginning ... hmmm
Or maybe it was just a coincidence then that the links were enabled again and the 'new' build was pushed out?

Assuming this was a server-side setting; one could assume that a small part of the Messenger department spent some modest time researching the risks and possible spreading through new versions. By simply initiating a forced update, the security still wouldn't be guaranteed and could cause double the discomfort, not to mention added negative reputation. Perhaps even a server side fix was needed to make sure the reported problem could not manifest itself in different forms. If that happens, it could lead to countless minor "fixes" and new versions of the worm along with it. Seems logical that as soon as they got their malfunction fixed with certainty when the service is used in conjunction with a specific build, they would force everyone to update to that build and re-enable options that caused risks before.

On a side note, I'm not one to trash talk Microsoft where it's not due, but I would say that it's not uncommon for Microsoft's services to be quite delayed when it comes to "minor" bugs. On the other hand, when a fix does arrive, it's usually very effective and not quick to be circumvented by users with malicious intentions.

Makes sense...

PS:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arcticwolfx
Assuming this was a server-side setting;

---

If you mean the enabling/disabling of features, then yes, it is done server-side. Besides hotlinks, these also include winks, file transfer, display pictures, dynamic backgrounds, photo sharing, phone, voiceim, voicemail, plugins, camera, audio, sharing folders, signature sounds, location PSM, ... all can be disabled globally by MS via a server side-setting.

My bad again, with "server side setting" I meant to say "Global," as in non-version specific, like you've mentioned in your post before.