Applications updating

[nihil]

If you go to the FileHippo download site, and look in the top right of the homepage you can download a utility that will check if there are any updates for your applications.
It even tells you if there are any beta releases

http://www.filehippo.com/

[HYBR|D]

I recommend this "Updater", i actually found it more light weight and picks up more "Updatable" apps/programs installed on your system, then what that psi updater.

Also i was 1 of the many beta testers for it also i've had a heap of months worth of playtime with it throwing all sorts of weird updates at it.

and you can set it up to either start when windows starts or only run when you run the program. No phoning home when you don't want it to, and it only checks what you want it to check for.

anyhow install and love it.

[nihil]

Hi there HYBR|D,

That is an interesting comment, because I actually use both products for what I consider to be good reasons:

1. Secunia PSI (Personal Software Inspector) is only interested in the security aspect of software updating. Basically, it will tell you if there are security patches that you haven't applied, and if you have a product that is no longer supported by its vendor.

It will not look at applications that it does not consider to have security implications, such as a lot of housekeeping utilities and the like.

2. FileHippo, on the other hand, looks at all your applications and tries to find out if there is a newer version, irrespective of security considerations. It will even advise you if there is an available beta release!

Now, Secunia do not comment on the security of betas, but they do check for patches (including the Windows OS). FileHippo, on the other hand, don't check patches, but just looks for new versions. If there isn't one, they don't tell you anything, even if the product is no longer supported.

To cut to the chase; companies like Microsoft work on "patches", and the product designation doesn't change...........so FileHippo won't pick that up. On the other hand, Secunia won't tell you if there is a newer version of your software if it doesn't relate to a security risk that they know about.

/me..............I use both of them mate, and on 8~10 year old kit, with no resource problems as a result

[metguru]

Interesting! Never thought to use both! Too bad they don't work on linux. I do understand that linux updates using repos, but there is no security standpoint that I know of like PSI for linux.

[nihil]

Hey! Metguru,

Please don't get me wrong..........Linux can probably get away with this for a while. The old "security through obscurity" argument?

Windows needs it NOW!..........to be honest, it needed it 10 years ago

[metguru]

Yes, just because it is more obscure does make it more secure in general, but it doesn't make specific vulnerabilities go away. Everyone has this idea that Linux is so secure, but its really only because a minority uses it. If you look online you can easily find exploits for Linux that have just been discovered. And I don't have time to constantly be doing research on something like that. Thats why I love Secunia PSI.

It pays off to be paranoid. So even though Linux is "more secure" due to obscurity, I like to know about the vulnerabilities. And i know Linux can "get away with it" now, but its things like that which make Windows, in my opinion, inferior. They "got away with it" for too long, and it caught up with them. For an OS to keep ahead in security, getting away with it just isn't acceptable in my book.

[Cider]

Without reading the FAQ , would this be good in a corporate environment, also is it safe?

EDIT: it will only scan for apps via default location so if you are like me and keep them in a seperate partition , you will need to edit this.

Also Nihil, would like be different on a 64 bit machine with program files being different ?

Runnign the update give me some updates but going to the suggested link to view the results.

"
404 Error

Sorry the page you requested could not be found.
Click here to return to the homepage."

[nihil]

would this be good in a corporate environment, also is it safe?

Yes, I think that it is safe, and I would obviously only use such software on a "reference machine" that would be outside of my production network systems. We do test updates before centrally deploying them don't we?

You will need Windows 98~Vista as it doesn't support Win 7 at present. Vista should do?

I don't know if 64 or 32 bit makes a difference................it shouldn't to File Hippo, but it might regarding your applications? I don't know of any applications that would have a Windows 7 upgrade and not a Vista one? or a 32 bit and not a 64 bit one...............that wouldn't make any sense to me.



The only 64 bit I have is Win 7, which I know doesn't work, even in compatibility mode.

[gore]

Yes, just because it is more obscure does make it more secure in general, but it doesn't make specific vulnerabilities go away. Everyone has this idea that Linux is so secure, but its really only because a minority uses it. If you look online you can easily find exploits for Linux that have just been discovered. And I don't have time to constantly be doing research on something like that. Thats why I love Secunia PSI.

It pays off to be paranoid. So even though Linux is "more secure" due to obscurity, I like to know about the vulnerabilities. And i know Linux can "get away with it" now, but its things like that which make Windows, in my opinion, inferior. They "got away with it" for too long, and it caught up with them. For an OS to keep ahead in security, getting away with it just isn't acceptable in my book.

Ummm, Linux isn't obscure... And if you take out the Desktop Market, Linux has a HUGE Server Market. All versions of Unix do.

In fact, if you look at Windows Server OSs, which are odd because they for some reason have Windows Media Player by default (2003 Enterprise Had this for some reason).... Why the .... Who would WANT Windows Media Player on a Server?

And why would I want to have to reboot servers because a Media Player that shouldn't be there to begin with has a vulnerability?

In the Server world, Unix is still the top. As for security, Unix has had this stuff for some time now. There is one thing I will say about Unix Servers you can't replicate, which makes them MUCH more secure than Windows:

In Unix / Linux, you can pay someone, or, if you're good enough at it, basically strip the Kernel down to nothing, hack the Server you need into the Kernel, and then use the built in packet filtering to drop everything that isn't basic traffic for that service.

Porn sites and govt do this, which is why some of them don't get broken. Basically anything sent to it that isn't, for example, Web Traffic, would be dropped. And even if someone did get something, what are they going to use? There aren't any applications on those, and there isn't even a shell most of the time except a minimal shell to get the machine going.

You can't do that in Windows.

Also, "Security through Obscurity" is the basis of passwords. It has to work once in a while or no one would use them anyway. I can go into a lot of detail why no Unix based OS is obscure, but most people already know this.

I will point out one last thing as to why "Obscure" and secure aren't true:

Apache. How much of the Market does Apache have again? AND you can view the source code? Why isn't it always broken if you can not only look for vulnerabilities in the source itself, but it runs MORE than half the Web Server market? You'd think it would have all kinds of problems if that whole obscure thing was true but it doesn't.

And most servers in general don't run Windows. A lot of companies probably wonder why they are paying through the nose for Windows licenses and then, more RAM and CPU to handle the GUI you can't turn off for a machine that sits on a closet without a monitor anyway.

That's probably one reason Unix will always win on Servers; You can shut the GUI off, or not install it at all. That and you aren't paying 50,000 dollars for Slackware or FreeBSD to install on your servers, and then, if you like a version that isn't supported? Well, on Windows you update or risk getting totally screwed on updates and patches.

On Linux and BSD, you can just pay someone to keep doing this for whatever version you like.

I kind of miss those my OS is better threads heh.

[nihil]

Gore!.............bloody behave yourself young man!

This is a home/desktop thread.........who gives a flying $%$^&* about unix servers or linux or whatever?