do automatic updates still use svchost use separat

In Windows XP SP2 automatic updates are delivered using svchost.exe, but this is not good, because if you give the outgoing permission to this svchost.exe in your firewall, then every process hosted by this svchost.exe is able to communicate with Internet and so maliciuous programs can advantage of this lack. Many users disable the automatic updates due this unsafe behavior. I hope in Windows XP SP3 the automatic updates and the windows updates are delivered using a separate and dedicated process (example: automaticupdate.exe) so an user is much more trustful to authorize only this in own firewall.

To some extent, it'll need to use the svchost.exe as it's the Generic Host Process for all Win32 stuff. But I do see your point though.
-- Zack Whittaker » ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk » MSBlog on ResDev: www.msblog.org » Vista Knowledge Base: www.vistabase.co.uk » This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and not of my employer, best friend, Ghandi, my mother or my cat. Glad we cleared that up!
--: Original message follows :-- "BillD" wrote in message

In Windows XP SP2 automatic updates are delivered using svchost.exe, but this is not good, because if you give the outgoing permission to this svchost.exe in your firewall, then every process hosted by this svchost.exe is able to communicate with Internet and so maliciuous programs can advantage of this lack. Many users disable the automatic updates due this unsafe behavior. I hope in Windows XP SP3 the automatic updates and the windows updates are delivered using a separate and dedicated process (example: automaticupdate.exe) so an user is much more trustful to authorize only this in own firewall.