Slashdot Mirror
The Impact on Open Source of Stolen Microsoft Code
Cabal writes: "I recently came across this article on Linux Journal. It discusses some of the more interesting legal ramifications of the theft of Microsoft's source code that I hadn't even thought of and it's effect on open-source projects. Basically, it's saying don't go near any code claiming to be stolen from MS, and with good reason, including quotations from the Samba project. Check it out, it's a good read."
In a sense, they are beurocracies. But the big difference between them and government beurocracies is that multinationals are scared, and only exist for a short time. They are scared of failure, of falling stock prices and losing money. They must perform to survive. A recent study by the UN (I don't have a reference, sorry) showed that the life expectancy of a multinational is about 40 years. Look at the multinationals that everyone goes on about now. Look at the ones 20,40, 60 or 100 years ago - they are different in every case. This is quite different from government beurocracies, which need fear nothing and are effectively immortal. Furthermore, multinationals are highly transparent. Every detail of what they do, where they do it, why they do it and the reason they do it is openly available for consumption by shareholders and the general public.And don't forget that these companies are also highly law abiding - it's within their interest to stay within the law, indeed it would be suicidal for them to deviate from it.You state that I have an absurd fantasy, and don't give any evidence or arguments as to why this should be the case
Furthermore, the WTO, which KissTheBlade seems to love, is itself a government bureaucracy.
Yes, it is a government beurocracy. It is also a very small one. It's remit is to felicitate free trade between as many countries as possible. Why is this bad? Why is this small organisation the target of so much ire?
This is an absolutely absurd fantasy. Stock is essentially adult Pokemon cards, and most stockholders don't get into detailed policy decisions of the companies they hold stock in. Furthermore, the largest chunks of stock are owned by various institutional investors, which makes KissTheBlade's workers-state fantasy look even more absurd.
Thats right, small investors rarely get into detailed policy decisions of the companies they hold stock in. They pay institutional investors to do it for them, and expect results. If they don't get them, they change to another fund management group. Guess what? 70% of Americans own shares. The same is true of most western nations. Th great majority of almost any large company is ultimately owned by small investors.And these investors do make decisions about what companies thay invest in. For example, so-called 'ethical investment' is now greatly feared in Wall Street and other financial centres. Remember the GM food companies share price crash? This was caused by ethical investment. Another example is the British based multinational Thompsons(I think thats what it's called), which owns Smith&Wessons the Gun manufacturer and is forcing it to make it's guns have safety devices etc, much to the chagrin of the NRA. Why is it doing this? Because it's running scared of the ethical investment funds. Because it's scared of getting sued, and -hey - it's a law abiding company.
Anyway, to wrap up, multinational are owned and circumscribed by the common man, and while some aspects of their behaviour can be unsettling, they are not Evil. I would argue that they are a great asset to us.
(I'm always amused when I see multinational protestors using mobile phones & the internet to organise, and see them on TV with their cheap, mass produced clothes. Hypocrites)
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
There is no
Heres the real source:
10 print "Microsoft Windows 98"
20 print "Loading please wait"
30 for A$ = 1 to 900000 step 1
40 print "Fatal exception error:"
50 print "Error 14 while tring to report error 19";
60 exit
Ok, so I haven't written anything in Basic in a LONG time.
until (succeed) try { again(); }
until (succeed) try { again(); }
Computer crime investigations can be expensive. Let's say we are spending $XXX on trying to find whoever broke into Microsoft's system. Who are they likely going to find? A couple of high school students with no special skills: they apparently used a well-known exploit.
That money could have gone to catching some violent criminal, or helping people with drug rehabilitation, or any of a number of purposes that would improve the lives of thousands of people.
On the list of social priorities, the crime that has been committed against Microsoft is very low: it has virtually no consequences to anyone (other than Microsoft's PR and marketing), and the people who perpetrated it are unlikely to be a threat to anyone.
You can't realistically defend yourself with a gun against someone who is reasonably skilled with a gun; if you try, you assume a huge risk. Defending yourself against an E-mail virus, however, exposes you to no risk at all and has almost no cost.
And that's the reason why I would like to see our police going out on the streets tracking down gun toting criminals. OTOH, tracking down some "script kiddies" won't make my life or anybody else's life any safer. It won't even restore anything to Microsoft. All it does is waste a lot of money that could have been spent better.
Whether Microsoft can claim IP once in court is an entirely separate issue from whether the police or legal system should make any significant effort in tracking down the people who broke in.
However, while it is popular in some circles to try to invent new forms of IP protection, reality is that it's not clear they actually have much IP protection. There are really only four major forms of IP: copyrights, patents, trade secrets, and trademarks. Only trade secrets would seem to apply here (possibly copyrights, but they don't contaminate). And the legal reality is that trade secrets need to be protected carefully in order to receive any legal protection.
http://www.mircosoft.com/
until (succeed) try { again(); }
until (succeed) try { again(); }
But what about the flipside of this.
Would it be at all feasible, from a law perspective, to counter-sue Microsoft for *NEGLIGENCE* in protecting their so-called trade secrets?
Wouldn't it be possible to make the argument that since Microsoft *allowed* the source code to get out into the public domain, they are responsible for their own mess, and thus use that as a basis to dismiss any court cases that would be enacted based on this conspiracy theory.
It seems to me that this argument could be made fairly strongly - as is the case with trademarks - if you do not protect it, you do not deserve the right to exclusivity, and thus there would be no basis for damages should the code be 'used' elsewhere?
Can anyone with a strong legal background comment on the feasibility of this issue? It would seem to me that something like this could be argued in any case against Microsoft for this purpose.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
It appears that Signall 11 has given his account to "a capable troll" so any newer post from this account is not the "real" Signal 11.
Are u really sure about this.
No, they probably wouldn't write, "Hey Dudes, check this out! This is M$ Office Source Code!". They would most likely write, "Hey Dudez, check this out! This is M$ Office Source Code!". Actually, they would probably capitalize every other letter, too. I was into the warez scene right around the time the Win95 betas were coming out (I was 14 and stupid). Those kids don't have an ounce of subtlety in their bodies.
Besides that, anyone who is a good enough programmer to contribute to any serious OSS project should be a good enough programmer to recognize code from an MS product (the fact that it's bloated and sucks should be a hint). Also, code posted with no license whatsoever should be pretty suspect.
-B
yeah, M$'s thing was that they have it actively search for duplicate files and then delete one and make hard links, wasn't it?
-------
Vidi, Vici, Veni
Name one Free Software developer on a major project that would use the stolen code. Tell me how Microsoft could prove that developers have been influenced by the stolen code. You cant just sneak code into gpl'd software.
--
True enough true enough, I'm just saying your initial post made it sound like they planned this, and I doubt that.
Deepak
Well, that's an interesting idea. You'll have to explain what voluntarily releasing your own property under liberal distribution terms has to do with the theft of personal details from others from others for profit. I'm afraid I just don't get the connection.
You don't *have* to believe in Open Source, it's not Tinkerbell.
It has measurable effects because it has been tried and works somewhat. On the other hand can you show me any human society anywhere that has *ever* used full transparency as a successful basis? I won't argue it doesn't have some points in theory conceivably, but it's inhuman and therefore impractical, at least until we mature significantly. One step at a time maybe?
Maybe you'd like to share personal and intimate details with a group of strangers, and prove it works? I won't stop you. Or is it that you really think corporations and governments have a right to privacy too?
if this is true M$ is in big trouble. people will copy(rewrite) the source code but not cut and paste it. Great news man Long live Linux
We all hate MS, so hacking into them and stealing code is hilarious! But he had to think he'd be screwed. Now he has every FBI agent in the world after him.
If they don't find him, this guy's my idle
It's not for everybody
Maybe it was an inside job...sponsered by some Microsoft 'deep throat'. Maybe the code that has been reported stolen isn't really microsoft source code. Maybe they have done it deliberately so they can sue the pants off the FSF six months down the line. Maybe it's a new variant on 'embrace, extend, extinguish', but this time without the awfully nice embrace part. Maybe I'm paranoid.
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
There is no
Why can't you believe it? Berkeley TCP/IP and Utils was the "standard" implementation, is fully relicencable (except for the advert clause, hence the copyright), has been used in virtually every OS, including Linux at one time. I have no doubt you can find that string in everything from MacOS to OS/390.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
But I see far more far-reaching impact on any open source project that seeks to integrate with MS products. Anything that succeeds must have come from the stolen IP! Sue everyone who might be involved with such products and force them to defend themselves in court and prove they never saw the code. (Oh, I forgot, you cannot prove a negative.)
Oh, yeah, and we heard about this days after it was anounced that Excel and Word 2000 now work in WINE. Very interesting...
I have said often that if I could just get Outlook to run in linux, I'd have no use for an MS OS. Guess someone overheard.
The GPL defends its software development model using copyright law,
whilst the MS defence is based on trade secrets. Utterly incomparable
from the legal point of view.
Not true. For example, a system that runs on a mainframe is accessed via a tn3270 program running under Windows NT. Hack that and you can install a keyboard sniffer and remote control app and get everything you need to get into that non-Microsoft system that the bank runs...
Yeah, you may be sued if you are caught looking at a t-shirt with DeCSS source code, so you may want to keep blinders on hand just in case.
Or, if you live outside the U.S. and come over for a visit, make sure you don't look at a t-shirtwith encryption algorithm source code - or you will be guilty of arms dealing.
And if your friends decide
To program for Windows
I'll see you on the dark side of the moon
Assume that what you say is true. Also assume that the Law of Coincedental Invention comes into play. Wouldn't this mean that M$ could effectly sue anyone who writes anything even closely resembling their code? It would be up to the coder to prove they'd never seen the M$ code. I doubt many of us would have the money to fight that kind of battle.
This is pretty scary
"It might be difficult to know for an OSS maintainer that a contribution to his software does not come from M$ stolen code....It won't be as simple as it looks."
I agree. There will be open source types who will use this code in a project regardless and in the end it will hurt us because microsoft will have access to the OSS source code of that project. The maintainer, on the other hand, may not have access to MS source code and won't know the difference until it's too late. So, should the maintainer get the illegal MS code to check against software submitted or should he sit blindly and assume the programmer submitting code is honest. This is a serious catch-22 here and it makes you wonder if there is a conspiracy behind the "stolen" code. Either way, OSS programmers have to be on red alert. A serious can of worms has been opened here and it could impact projects like SAMBA, WINE, or Win4Lin. Programmers of the aforementioned projects need to be cautious of anyone submitting a reverse engineering breaktrough of a Windows API.
I do want these projects to succeed by any means, however, the use of MS code will come back and bite them in the butt if they are not careful. Many of anti-MS types were happy that MS got cracked, but I have mixed feelings. The timing of the crack is too perfect - Samba TNG was formed recently which promises to implement primary domain controller type services. Could Microsoft be planning evil or is this coincidence? If you do find the code, be very careful and be smart. As much as I'd like these guys to look at the code, laugh at the bugs, and reverse engineer it, cheating will only cheat the users of free software somewhere down the line. MS has enough money to file some serious lawsuits against people they feel have used their code and in the end good projects like WINE or SAMBA will be forced underground.
I hate microsoft as much as the next linux geek, but they're not just a huge group of millionaires sitting around plotting how to destroy Linux. They would not let someone steal their source code in such a risky venture just to shut down a few MS-related projects like samba, wine, and maybe abiword. It would turn them into who they hate most: people who give away thier source.
# debian/rules
what is sarchastic you fucking moron?
If the quality of the code is at all similar to the quality of the astroturfers, stay far, far away from it.
tell me, should the firewall open & inspect every piece of mail it gets?
.vbs, they strip it out and replace it with a message saying someone tried to send on to you. If you know this person and why they did, tell them to resend it as a .txt. Since the first .vbs 'virus', we haven't had any attacks.
Yes, but just to scan for viruses. My school does a quick check, and if an attachment ends in
Forget the legal ramifications... using microsoft code in an Open Source and/or Free Software project would be like building your house out of straw when you get free bricks and know the Big Bad Wolf is on his way.
1. Bill Gates' credit card details
2. Source code for Bob
3. Cheat list for Solitaire
4. Online application form for donations from the Bill and Melinda foundation
5. Wish list for enhancements to MS-DOS 3.3
6. Complete set of MP3s of Steve Ballmer rocking out
7. Original code for Linux
8. Discarded Office Assistants including Penfield the crazy Judge and Linus the toad
9. Contents of Bill's desktop trash folders for the last five years
10. Contact details for Bill's personal stylist
.sigs: Just Say No!
of course, you're presuming that the majority of people care much about apple's code. while niche software like apple's is interesting, mainstream stuff like microsoft permeates all corners of computing use.
so, considering their huge monopoly, the much larger threat of legal action is pretty scary compared to steve job's infantile rantings.
EOM
Just send that stolen code to Linus Torvalds and Alan Cox, and *poof* Linus is dead!
The reports I've seen say code may have been stolen. They say that the Qaz trojan may have been the way the crackers gained entry.
But I've heard/read nothing definitive. The whole thing screams 'inside job' to this clueless luser.
For easy karma, does anyone have facts?
For example, how did the crackers get around the (OpenBSD?) firewalls?
internet mail:anita548:aol.com ICQ#:74734566
Ok, this is redundant with another post, but I think you are right. My IP lawyer/father buys your logic. A trade secret must be given protection in proportion to its value. This is possibly the world's most valuable trade secret, which would seem to indicate you should take extraordinary precautions in protecting it.
Arguably, no physically networked computer should contain the source code - they should look like my old 486, no modem, no network, nothing. This is how we secure nuclear launch codes. If you want a less extreme example, the financial backbone used by major banks is a set of data lines unconnected to the net or the telphone networks - it's physically secure.
Trade secret protections dissolve if the secret is revealed due to improper protection. Of course, now the software is still copyrighted. However, a copyright provides minimal protection for ideas - it's very difficult to win a copyright suit against a work that isn't a carbon copy or damn close.
In other words, if somebody spams this to a usenet group and it gets mirrored ten million times, this probably proves 1) it is insanely valuable and 2) it should have been better protected.
My lawyer has required me insert this statement: This statement should not be construed as competent legal counsel. Should you posses a concrete interest in this matter, you should seek the services of attorney. Under no circumstances is the poster or any associate of said poster in any way liable for any damages or liabilities incurred as a result of this statement, including any implied, consequential, or other damages or liablities.
Forgive me, oh Slashdot, I put a legal disclaimer in a post!!!!
The biggest annoyance in this case goes to the kernel 'decision committee' (Torvalds, Cox, etc.) who will have to monitor submissions to make sure none of the code appears possible M$ code.
Another thought...maybe this is an ego-saving move on M$'s part...they were possibly about to make this code open source anyway?
TheGeek
TheGeek
http://www.geekrights.org
Kill the monkey
sarcasm, or a stupid person. ;)
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
The trial isn't over yet. It will probably be drawn out for years to come. M$ will loose in some courts, the DOJ in others. No one will "Win" or "Loose" the trial until the Supreme Court hears or refuses to hear it, or one side gives up on further appeals.
Even if M$ were to loose, it would still take another three to ten years to split them up.
As for the whole "$$$ for the better lawyer" story, what do you think has been the major problem for the DECSS case? Judges who don't get it and lawyers who can talk circles around the truth.
There are plenty of cases where a criminal went free because of the quality of their lawyers. Standard Oil was bigger and badder than M$ can ever dream of being and made Bill Gates look like a Saint. It took years to even touch them, but not until JDR's personal fortune was 2% of the entire US Economy.
The "Teflon Don" escaped justice time and taime again, and OJ walked away a free man.
These are all because of lawyers and the US legal system. It has nothing to do with what is right and wrong, but who has the best legal team. Anyone who really thinks the "truth will set you free" or that anything other than money runs the nation is a sad individual with no concept of reality who might as well believe in Santa Calus.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
and your friend reading your book is copyright infringement.. yuk.. there should be laws against that.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Wait, how is this post moderated to 4 Insightful, where the post above, "Part of Microsoft's plan to destroy Linux", says essentially the same thing in less eloquent words, and gets a 3 Troll?
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
The Germans are stealing our code! Oh No! Bill Gates __IS__ the final antichrist that was predicted. Judgement Day is at hand. We're all gonna die at the hands of Model 101 cyborgs from Cyberdyne Systems. The world is coming to an end.
Or not.
:)
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
I always liked ROFEL-MAO, though I guess that's just a matter of taste.
--Giving to trolls for the benefit of us all
I don't buy that whole "contamination" thing. If contamination exists then: Anybody who's ever used MFC is contaminated, because it comes with proprietary MS source code. Conversly, anybody who's ever patched gcc is a GPL violator unless they release all their work under the GPL.
Unless Open Source projects start showing up with large swaths of code containing things like DWORD and LPVOID, I don't see how MS could prove anything.
Oh no! I've just released the secret of DWORD and LPVOID! I'm doomed!!!
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Has it occurred to anyone else here that this is possibly a ruse? By this, I mean that the 'attack' could conceivably have been organized by elements within Microsoft itself to give them a legal basis for suing companies or individuals working on open-source projects that threaten their markets. Particularly ones involving emulation.
Now I know better than to attribute to skulduggery what can adequately be explained by stupidity, but this strikes me as a powerful legal weapon falling into their lap at an opportune time.
I never said there way any particular distributions of DeCSS, but if they did have a injunction against the Samba people then it would work pretty much the same way, with people distributing nay which way they can. (Did you read the link?)
-
As cunning as a fox, which has just been appointed professor of cunning at Oxford University. http://www.kinlan.co
If you come across Micorsofts code you should treat it the same way you treat none OSS code with respect for peoples effort and intelectual rights (no mater how much you hate them, would you like it if some cam along, copied your software and sold it on as their own.
Also I think at the current moment with the nature of the OSS movement if legal action was taken against the project someone would carry on the project after it has had a injunction against it etc.. I mean just look at DeSSC code that has been distriuted so many ways. ie this
-
As cunning as a fox, which has just been appointed professor of cunning at Oxford University. http://www.kinlan.co
I don't think that's even necessary. Obviously you haven't used Linux; otherwise you would know about www.gnu.org, a huge repository of countless refutations to your wide, sweeping statement. Please familiarize yourself with some non-commercial platform before you tell us how non-commercial programs are worthless, redundant, or uninventive.
-raph
Microsoft has to take reasonable care in protecting valuable trade secrets. It is clear that they haven't. Even if they believe that their E-mail client has sufficient security, if they believe their source code is as valuable as it is, it should reside on a more protected part of the network. Microsoft is merely trying to avoid responsibility for their product defects and for their poor security policies.
It is an outrage that the taxpayer now even has to foot the bill for trying to track down people who took advantage of security defects in Microsoft products. That would be like GM selling cars with no locks and then claiming it's the taxpayer's responsibility to find all the stolen cars.
It is still good advice for open source projects to stay away from any Microsoft source, legally or illegally obtained. But don't get suckered into believing that Microsoft has any ethical claims: they were negligent. And, objectively, they ought not to have any hope of legal success either--they should fix their products instead and stop shifting the cost of their defective products onto law enforcement and, ultimately, the tax payer. As long as they can get away with shifting cost and responsibility onto others, they will have no economic incetives to fix their software or procedures.
If you stumbled (by reverse engineering, intelectual insight, etc...) onto one of their Trade Secrets you wouldn't have a problem. If you've used stolen code you would find yourself in some very hot water.
A company is required to protect its trade secrets. I'm sure a Firewall is a good example of protection steps. The use of passwords to access required resources would be as well.
The fact someone broke in and potentially stole them doesn't mean they are fair game.
The good thing is, according to Microsofts public statements they got nothing of any significant value. This is good. Now they shouldn't be able to use this against development like SAMBA, etc that may do some reverse engineering. (in the legal sense)
If so I think we'd best get a list of the most expensive lawyers around to maximise the damage!
I can see their faces now.... with Microsoft having to pay programmers working under the GPL, for having to make sure they wouldn't have to pay Microsoft!
And then Bill's precious source that the "stolen" open source code has to come out in discovery. And how can Bill prove that Microsoft didn't copy the open source program, the other way around? Unless there's an independently verified copy of the alleged MS source from prior to the release of the version of the open source program in question, there's no way to prove such an allegation.
Precisely.
Mainland China rejected MS-Windows out of concerns that it might have unknown backdoors designed by the US government. The French have also expressed similar suspicions of Microsoft. And there is no shortage of countries which are hostile toward and/or paranoid about the USA. Even some of our "friends" (e.g., Israel, France) cheerfully engage in military and industrial espionage against US targets. So the list of suspect _nations_ is not a short one. Plus, there are myriad criminal mafias and terrorist organizations who might be interested. The cracker(s) of Microsoft could belong to any of these groups, or none.
If the cracker(s) owned Microsoft developers' accounts, Microsoft is simply being irresponsible to assure everyone that its code wasn't "enhanced" in some way. This should give pause to any large business considering future upgrades of _any_ Microsoft software. As a CIO in such a position, I'd want Microsoft to _prove_ to me (or a proxy, like an independent auditing company) that no possibility exists that their code was tampered. Microsoft might find this difficult to accomplish, given that they were cracked for three months!
If it was an inside job it might not have been that hard to do. A friend of mine works on the microsoft campus for another company, and as a part of his work he is given access to the visual source safe server that actually has the daily changes on it. He could download the entire thing if he wanted to, and all he would have to get around is the logging.
I only post twice a year, who needs a sig?
Ahh, it's so good to live in Canada.. For one, I can avoid all you stupid, ignorant people, no matter where you live. Oh, and let's not forget the fact that Canada is regonized as one of the best countries in the world. When you backpack across Europe, how many people stop for the Canadian and offer a ride? Now how many stop for the American, look at him, smell him, hear him talk; and drive away as fast as they can? :)
I love people from across the ocean, they rule. Down south.. I dunno.. Hell, as an example. look at your political race, thats such a joke, I mean, give me a break..
Oh Canada....
-TimmyC, Tech Guru
Here's the text from that page:
Information About Security Incident on Microsoft Corporate Network
You may have read news reports today about a security incident involving the Microsoft corporate network. Here is some information on the incident and what Microsoft is doing about it.
Microsoft Corporate Security recently became aware of a hacking incident on the Microsoft Corporate Network, and is moving aggressively to isolate the problem and ensure the security of the network. Although Microsoft Corporate Security is continuing to investigate the incident to determine its full scope, we have no reason to believe that any customers have been or will be affected in any way by the incident.
The best information we have suggests that the scope of the incident may have been much narrower than originally reported. The hacker may have viewed the source code for a single future product under development. Contrary to some reports, the product was not a major product such as Windows ME, Windows 2000 or Office, and our investigation has confirmed that it has not been modified or corrupted in any way. We have no evidence to suggest that the hacker gained any other access to any other source code. Similarly, we have no evidence to suggest that any of Microsoft's online services have been or will be affected by the incident.
The security breach did not involve a security vulnerability in any Microsoft product. Microsoft is implementing an aggressive plan to improve the protection of our internal corporate network -- both in the immediate term and in the long term -- and will announce some of these measures in the near future.
Microsoft is a frequent target of network-based attacks, and Corporate Security actively works to protect the network against them. Microsoft is working with US law enforcement authorities to investigate this incident, and will take appropriate action when the responsible parties have been identified.
In sum, this is a deplorable act of industrial espionage, but we anticipate that customers will be unaffected by it. We are taking appropriate steps to deal with the immediate problem, and are developing follow-on steps to prevent it from happening again.
Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
Nobody stole any Microsoft code. Microsoft staged the break-in to create a perception of greater value in their product & to get certain anti-hacker legislation shuttled through Congress (which will help them yield greater control over their product after you've bnought it & to fight against open source software's necessity to reverse engineer their proprietary standards and publish security exploits). The Microsoft staged break-in also helps to bolster their image as a victim, rather than the perpetrator.
Be certain: these events did not transpire without a reason. Microsoft wants to control your computing experience from the ground up and will do whatever it can do to further that end.
--
--
He lives in a world where those who do not run the client software of the omnipresent meme are unacceptable.
Well, actually a corporation is a person. When the feds crack down on it you don't see the President and board members going to jail unless they've done something blatantly illegal outside the company. The corporation acts as the legal entity for all the shareholders for their protection. If it goes bankrupt, the shareholders don't lose their houses (well, unless they have all their money in the company's stock). Corporations are not evil greedy monsters anymore than any other community is.
Please!
Assumption is the mother of all fuckups. Have you ever seen the Microsoft source code?
And... have you never seen open source code that is beyond crap?
Just because you can't read it, it doesn't mean it's badly written. Try seeing an implementation of a COM subsystem that is easy to read.
The difference of course is that with Samba and Wine, anybody can sit there and track the CVS tree from day to day and see exactly what changes are going on. Yes, if Joe Shmoe checks in some MS proprietary secret HE will get slammed not Wine or Samba. Those projects have effectively given these crooks the kiss of death and told them to bugger off with their stolen code. Besides, they're already doing fine on their own without it. I imagine the code the Samba and Wine teams are hacking together are probably BETTER than the actual code Microsoft puts out. ;-)
Though proprietary, it is as 'Open Source' as lots of code people here praise.
Strange, I haven't seen any praise falling on anything that didn't meet the Open Source definition. On the other hand, there's been disdain for the QPL, which did meet that definition but wasn't GPL-compatible, and there's been absolute loating for the SCSL, which isn't open source but is at least closer than "published source" from IBM.
Damn, you mean French taunters actually talk like that?!
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
The other side of the coin is proof. How will M$ use a secret code to prove it has been coppied? Will they be able to just pull out any old piece of code they fancy and say, "Here you are judge, this proves that they coppied our code. They did not even bother to change the variable names." Will they deposit their source at some impartial and secure notary? Will people be able to querry the notary? Who would beleive the thing anyway?
Bad Joke: The judge will know by running the program in question. If it works, it can't be MS.
yeah, I entirely agree, if I were an engineer switching between 2 car manufacturers I would take certain knowledge that I'd learnt at the first company to the second... This happens everyday and nobody cares. .
All of a sudden it's different when it's M$ ?
I don't understand why, why does having seen M$ code make all code written after that by a person theft by default ? Why ? I'm serious, it seems as if the burden of proving the person is not a thief falls on that person himself, why should it not fall on M$ to prove he is (and having seen the code is not enough IMO, let them prove he used it...)? It's a total opposite to the engineer switching jobs, there the burden of proof falls on the accusing company and the engineer is innocent 'till proven guilty
Since when does seeing a car's blueprint make a person a thief automatically ? Since when is it illegal to look at a blueprint even if it's not yours ? Since when will the engineer not be able to work for any other car maufacturers if he's seen some blueprint ?Man, the digital age seems to give all kinds of evil companies a carte blanche to interpret the law exactly how they want to. The governments seem too clueless to realize what's going on.
Maybe I'm just being paranoid here but it seems as if a lot of things are moving in a totally wrong direction.
Actually they'd probaly "y0 d00Dz, /\/\$ 0771c3 50u4c3 c0D3z"
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
If you really believe that open source software is better (million eyes look at the source), then would you really want to use MS code anyway? That's kinda like admitting that MS does make better software. Granted one could take bits and pieces of the code, but really, I don't think I'd want to see it. It kind of takes away the satisfaction of doing it yourself and showing MS (and the world) that open source software can work.
I tend to believe the AC since they are generally people who fear repercussions from what they post here, be it from their employer, future employers, or the community. Thankfully there is still the AC account available for these courageous souls to use to get this information out there.. otherwise it would be hidden in the closets of corporate america along with everything else.
"if you have come in contact with illegally obtained commercial source code, you are forbidden from contributing to this project's cvs"
if pr0n sites can say "go away if you're not 18" then that should be enough.
Whoever did this is prolly still laughing on their floor, rolling around in a heap of giggles. It ain't gonna be hard to hide ;).
Cop: Did you break into Microsoft?
Hax0r: *giggle* uhh.. *giggle* no.
Cop: We have logs that claim you did.
Hax0r: Alright.. *giggle* you got me *giggle*.
Cop: Whats so funny?
Hax0r: How do you break into something that isn't protected?
:P
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
Or, say, someone emails some of this code to the kernel mailing list directly. Now, nearly the entire team of linux developers, among other projects, has seen the 'forbidden source'. IANAL, but MSFT could possibly use the fact that they saw the 'forbidden source' as justifications that now they're now privy to MSFT's proprietary software models. They may use this fact to either sue future developers, or inhibit future development of such projects.
If you emailed the linux source code to the Windows developers at MS, I don't think you could prevent them from working on proprietary software even if you could prove that they saw GPL'd code, so I don't think MS can prevent you from working on free software just because you saw proprietary code.
What if M$ decides to copy a chunk of GPL'd code and claim it was part of the super secret stolen source? Would anyone believe such a forgery?
--------------------------------------
If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.
Also I think at the current moment with the nature of the OSS movement if legal action was taken against the project someone would carry on
the project after it has had a injunction against it etc.. I mean just look at DeSSC code that has been distriuted so many ways. ie this
How many software distributions are there that publish DeCSS? None.
The catch to the MS stuff is that if Samba were to get MS' code, they'd mostlikely obfuscate it in such a way that it'd be hard to prove it legally. As for MS' intellectual property rights, I say screw them. They're a monopoly; they thrive on not allowing other systems to network easily with them.
Well, this is too "I'm a good and honest citizen, I'm small and weak and frail and leave me alone." Are you suggesting a single second to play the rules with such cheaters as Microsoft ??? My vote would rather for EVERYONE to steal their code and develop on (they stole our money, pushed our companies to bankrupt anyway, so what's wrong ?). Besides, if EVERYONE do it, then the principle of civil desobediance applies : MS cannot go against everyone, nor the DOJ, the police, anything. Nor can they attack free software seriously : they cannot force us to *sell* it. And besides, without proof, all accusations are futile, so unless you're caught with source code, you're safe. In fact, even if your code "looks alike" the code from MS, it can have been achieved by legal ways. Therefore I strongly encourage everyone to read their source thoroughly and completely, and to develop for it. Maybe if alternatives to MS software exist, they will fall into bankruptcy faster and therefore won't even have enough money to sue people to the other end.
Microsoft would have to admit that source code to more than the unspecified project that won't ship for years was accessed in order to sue anyone, something they're busily denying. The loss of customer confidence would be far more damaging than any gains from suing anyone.
--meredith
--meredith
Sometimes a scream is better than a thesis
shut up, i don't need your crap...so i can't add!!!! SO WHAT??!!! Neal stephenson says, "If you can do math, learn how to tell computers to do it for you" That's my life. I think that the hackers were just trying to figure out microsoft's non-mathematical programmers' approach to telling computer to do math for us. and don't bug me about run-on sentences!!!! or, commas,.
-"Hey, Baby. It's not a rash, it's textured love."
then, it seems to me that a way around this, if you mistakenly or intentionally saw some of this mysterious M$ source would be to go th M$ and sign an NDA. Basically admitting that you saw it, but that you have just said, legally, that you won't use it.
Anyone? Anyone?
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
Hey, Dudes, check this out! This is M$ Office Source Code!
"for (i = 0; i size; ++i)"
OH NO!
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Am I being paranoid^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hconcerned that MSs "theft" could be their carefully orchestrated, poorly disguised effort to discredit/destroy Open Source through oppresive application of litigation?
Not at all. Just take a look at what the MPAA and RIAA are doing...
=================================
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
There's a very easy way to do this which isn't always obvious. All you have to do is have the program inside the firewall (QAZ in this case) connect to a machine outside the firewall to act as a tunnel. Any machine that wants to talk to the machine inside the firewall can connect to the machine outside it and the tunnel acts as... well... a tunnel between the two. A coworker and I have used this method quite successfully to access a linux box within the LAN at work.
We gotta make sure nobody looks at that code, especially those hackers. I mean, they're smart, they'd know what we were doing. Threaten to sue all of them? No, that would look bad, we've got enough bad press already. How about this: let's scare them into not looking at it. Spread the word that even looking at this code would threaten their ability to work on any free software projects in the future. That should scare anybody smart enough to figure what's in there.
Everytime anything to do with decss is posted on /., a load of +5 informative posts pop up with the code. Slashdot refuse to take them off.
If someone decided to post some key code to windows here, would it be kept on the server? How many nanoseconds would it take before 200,000 lawyers shut the site down?
How far will slashdot go?
Take your own advice asshole. It's a broad bearing statement, undeniably. And I wasn't fishing for an apology, or even an aknowledgement. Merely pointing it out so that next time you can be less offensive. Apparently it's beyond your capabilities to see that. It's sad, really.
BTW, no response to this is solicited, required, desired, wanted, or any other 'ed of it's kind.
If you want to be that much of a fuckwit, do it in your own bedroom, alone.
Just a random thought that popped in my head, but what if it turned out that GPL'd code was found in Microsoft's source code?
:P
Maybe their 'innovative' re-invention of symlinks and mapping drives to directories was based on GPL'd code.
Prolly not, but I say it was just a random thought I had.
Thank you. Drive through. (:wq)
Not in and of itself, but this isn't about crime, it's about liability (or the potential) which is a completely different thing. Turtle
---------------------------------------
Rotate the pod, please, HAL....
To be honest, I had this smug feeling about the whole deal until I read the article. This is really an unfortunate situation. More importantly, it touches all of us, since anyone who tries to reverse engineer an API from MS is going to get painted with the haxor brush. The MS code isn't even that good. I only hope that they don't use this as an excuse to begin a litigious assault on the Open Source movement. Sustained lawsuits attacking key applications will slow development, and could influence virtually everything we do.
One thing this means for us is this: concentrate in your source trees, now more than ever, on modularity. Any time a chunk of code becomes suspect, we should be able to isolate and replace it until the dispute is resolved.
On another note, it would probably be a good idea for people in the Open Source community to alert the FBI to anything we might hear about who may be responsible for this. While I don't like MS, the courts will punish them for their monopoly, and the marketplace will punish them for their close source methodology. To not assist whereever appropriate will leave us open to accusations that our community is filled with criminals and warez d00dz.
Besides, the sooner this is put to rest, the sooner we can dispel the myth that MS source code is actually valuable in the first place...
It was kind of funny, but not really.
--
--
He lives in a world where those who do not run the client software of the omnipresent meme are unacceptable.
it's just amazing to see all the writing that have been derived since the news was made public. it's all conditional and nobody except for microsoft really knows what was seen and what was stolen. all these authors ought to get some technical training before trying to write an technical article. all i read is buzz words: trojan horse, back door, email, russia. none can definitely give a really good explanation of how exactly that happened. why?
What if the code wasn't stolen. They could claim it was stolen, then sue anyone working with their file formats or API's, and claim that they couldn't have accomplished what they did without seing the actual source.
Without any proof of the source actually floating around on the net they would probably loose, but just the threat and execution of law suits would scare a lot of people from working in that area.
BTW: If someone bought one of the collections of 68.000.000 mail addresses, and mailed pieces of the source personally to each with a misleading subject, would then everyone have to prove that they didn't read that mail to be able to continue working as developers at all? I mean, if open source developers could be sued if they had seen the source, so could all the other developers.
-segfault
Am I being paranoid^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hconcerned that MSs "theft" could be their carefully orchestrated, poorly disguised effort to discredit/destroy Open Source through oppresive application of litigation?
No.
What's going on? Well, it seems like MS's PR department has been working hard to downplay the attack. Notice how the informant shifts over time from an unnamed "Microsoft engineer" to Balmer to MS's "corporate security officer." I assume that what happened went like this: 1) a mid-level MS engineer leaked the real story to the press, 2) PR (Balmer) steped in for damage control, and finally 3) PR propped up a puppet with a written script to try and kill the issue.
The thing is, the strategy may backfire on MS. Now, they can't claim that open source developers are pirating their code. They've already gone on record saying no MS code exists in the wild. Which means that if you happen upon the source to Office, you are free to look at it, since MS has already declared that that code does not exist.
Heh.
While I understand the legal issues involved... it still irks me that reading something can get you into trouble. I mean - is it a crime to read? I'll be sure to bring a pair of blinders with me everywhere I go now... I wouldn't want to accidently read something I shouldn't.
feh!
Usually, but if you're using Outlook's read-and-execute mail reader, you've pretty much blown a hole from the inside out. I think you might make a good case that, with it's history of exploits, maintaining trade secrets on any box that runs it is negligent.
I quite agree, MS, or anyone else for that matter does not have the resources, man power etc. to track down every developer or potential developer on projects such as samba, or wine. Besides the above constraints, MS would also be constrained by the fear of bad press, consumer/governmental reaction ...
However powerfull microsoft is, they do indeed have finite power. The resources to shutdown any open source project are enormous (developers around the world, source code already in the hands of future potential developers). I think it is the very nature of open source that makes it impossible to eradicate.
We should all be aware of posibility of such legal tactics against open source software in the future.
There seems to be a lot of paranoid conspiracy theorists amongst ourselves :-)
And remember, today is the first day of the rest of your life.
The article seems to make sense, and I applaud the samba guys for their cleanliness. But is it really that serious? Is it the same thing as seeing a circle and using that idea to create a sphere? I think in a perfect reality without software patents and everything, it should be fair game to incorporate ANY found source code and give credit with the source distribution. I'm curious as to what could happen if someone read MS source code, and then worked on a related OSS project. Aren't there documented cases of Microsoft incorporating someone else's (Apple, Xerox) "trade secrets" into their products?
Thank god for EuroDisney!
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
It is because Microsoft holds the copyright to this code. They have not licenced these (hypothetical) developers to use it. It would be the same legal argument that would be made if someone tried to incorporate GPL'd code into a proprietary poduct.
Think about it. A lot of people use windows. they have the source, and exploits we don't. M$ is not...shall we say...on the ball about bugs, and with crackers having the source and exploits that windows users have no way of knowing and no way of stopping, look out for that bad worm/trojan that everyone's been talking about.
So what if they can't get anyone convicted. The open source developer would have to pay a loyar to demand proof that the code was actually stolen, and I bet a lot of developer would think "Nah, it's just a minor side project anyhow. It's not worth that much effort".
-segfault
I totally aggree with u that even if u get access to the code, deny that u ever saw it and dont discuss that u saw the code with any one. Keep it secret. otherwise the whole open source might land in trouble.
I am sick of hearing all of the hypocrites who can actually advocate Open Source and Privacy in the same breath.
If you believe in Open Source, wouldn't you believe that this world would be a whole lot better if everybody had access to every piece of information about everyone? Full disclosure to everybody would solve poverty, hunger, war, and almost every other major problem plaguing us!
If you are firm on maintaining your privacy, wouldn't you respect a company's rights to protect their own property? If your hernia or sexual adventures are important enough to protect with military-grade encryption, shouldn't those same benefits be given to the products that make companies like Microsoft billions of dollars a year?
Choose one, and shut up about the other!
So, what happens if someone posts a review of the way MS did, say, real-time prioritization. Clearly the person who wrote this is treading thin ice, and MS will likely go after them.
;-)
On the other hand, does the person who reads this review have any obligation not to use the info? It seems to me that there's no copyright OR trade secret protection for a method that you came across this way. Unless MS has patented the particular method, you SHOULD be free and clear.
Lawyers? Thoughts?
I, however, am most interested in just how bad the code is. I'd love to look at it, not because I think they have any good ideas, but because I want some humor in my life
Whats the problem? Open Source is a decision of the developer. Until a developer decides to release code it belongs to them. The principle of privacy is that the individual has control over the use of their information. Take an issue with privacy - companies installing spy applications on your PC without your knowlege or permission. I don't agree with this because you havn't given your permission for them to access your computers information.
When you dstribute some Software as Open Source you are explicitly giving people permission to use and distribute it, so those people are complying with your privacy wishes.
I don't think its a corporate/individual thing - its a permission thing. If you give information away thats one thing, having information stolen from you is another.
Wait... so that would make working for Microsoft the equivalent of an Actor's inability to get legit roles after working in Stag films... I knew it all along...
i'm so tired of self-loathing moaning yanks (on slashdot, particularly) always complaining about what someone else "says" like it broke their bones or something. The idea of free speech, that many americans claim to value so highly, is that people can make unsolicited comments that others may not like. The world doesn't owe you polite conversation. Meanwhile, the logic of my initial statement is incontrovertible, and if you read it again a few times (slowly, or get a grown-up to help)maybe you'll see that
I'm sure that the people who are working on the wine project can show tarballs of source code going farther back than microsoft could. it doesn't matter anyways, if they can show the source from four months ago (one month before MS got cracked) than they can prove beyond any doubt that they aren't receiving stolen code in any way shape or form and then also that MS is trying to sabbotage them, thats not only an unfair bussiness practice, but i doubt that the FBI likes it when big brother cries wolf...
Yes and I believe that that page was written by Officer Barbrady
OK. Fine.
So, if I read GPL'd code, does that mean I can't participate in Closed-Source projects? Must every project I'm involved with be GPL'd and released to the public, because I've been influenced by GPL'd code?
How far do we take this?
to pronounce my name, I would have to pull out your tongue...
i++;
;-P
The MS coding standard requires use of the unary pre- (rather than post-) increment operator. The quoted line does not conform.
It is hard to imagine that something that could look so good on the surface (Microsoft getting totally 0wned) could be so bad for the Free Software Movement. Now potentially any open source project that has anything to do with Microsoft interoperability is open to a law suit. At the very least, it will make accepting contributed code into the CVS tree more difficult.
It has been said that one of the fundamental damages that security breaches cause is not only the loss of data, but the loss of the integrity of data. It is unfortunate that this loss of integrity has to spread to other victims that have basically nothing to do with Microsoft.
Friends don't let friends use multiple inheritance.
except for reading the stolen code (which i personally recommend against, keeping the high ground means not violating the law, no matter what the gains could be), there would be no way to find stolen code in microsoft products.
A lot of the DeCSS defeat has to do with Judge Kraplan. That decision only holds in the Southern District of New York by the way. Some judges actually have half a brain. :)
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
True, they probably won't keep it in a directory that is named "W2k source code -- STAY OUT YOU BAD HACKERS!", ;)
but something as much code as that..
Its hard to hide 1000 *.c files
While I understand the legal issues involved... it still irks me that reading something can get you into trouble.
Well, I DON'T understand something about this, and the flap surrounding it:
As I understood it, a trade secret is GONE once the secret is out of the bag. The holder of the secret has an action ONLY aginst the person who improperly exposed it - either after stealing it, or in violation of a valid confidentiality agreement - and perhaps anyone in collusion with that person. (Collusion would be things like hiring him to steal it, or giving him some benefit in return for a copy you knew to be stolen. Downloading it from an open internet site would not be collusion.)
Since when is there an action against anyone found using part of a FORMER secret that is now widely distributed? Since when is there NOT a big-time countersuit and other legal grief for anyone who brings such a bogus suit?
Yes, you can sue anyone for anything. Yes, if you have enough lawyers you can cause anybody a lot of trouble. But you can't just use your money and the court system to make life hell on any random person or company you don't like. You have to have a palusible case. If you knowingly bring a bogus suit you're on the hook big-time - both civilly and (if you're blatant and unpopular enough) criminally.
Has the deCSS case broken the legal system THAT badly?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Salon also is asking the question
t ml
http://www.s alo n.com/tech/log/2000/10/27/microsoft_crack/index.h
----
----
Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
Using the same reasoning, any MS employee who has seen the SAMBA code shouldn't be allowed to work for MS anymore?
...plus it would look bad for them trying to fight OSS developers working on wine/samba/...
I'm serious. The fact that the source was stolen should not matter. Maybe accessing the MS source code would prevent you from claiming a "clean room implementation", but not from working on OSS at all.
Just another idea... what if GPL'd code is found in Windows. I'd like MS being sued (by FSF?) over copyright infringement.
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
I wonder if we'll soon be seeing lots of angry press-releases from Redmond, claiming that (insert your favourite open-source project here) has 'obviously' used code 'stolen' from Microsoft? Makes you wonder if this 'hack' actually happened at all....
(Note: I don't believe this for a second, but even so, it's a nice conspiracy theory. Give me a couple of days and I'll work the Illuminati and the Knights Templar in as well...)
The only problem being, we Americans who are tired of the stupid majority are rapidly migrating North... and because there's no large body of water between Canada and the US, and no real need to operate mechanical equipment to get there, the stupid people will follow as soon as they discover that they can't run things... along about Wednesday, I should imagine.
If Microsoft's source code appears in public, downloadable from somewhere or in some other way, most likely they will not write on the page "Hey Dudes, check this out! This is M$ Office Source Code!". Maybe after the water calms down, something will appear in some anonymous way in some projects, in some webpages... It might be difficult to know for an OSS maintainer that a contribution to his software does not come from M$ stolen code. How should a maintainer behave? Should he be paranoid? Should he act "in good faith"? It won't be as simple as it looks.
Either a hacker took the code so that it will be easier to find the weaknesses of MS and exploit them with very targetted viruses and such
or
M$ faked it so they can mess with the OSS community. Anything could be pirated code unless M$ puts out for public record the code that was stolen so that everyone knows what not to accept. The truth is this could be done without M$ compromising their code. A federal agency could be the middle man who does code comparisions for OSS projects. If something smells fishy, the OSS can be notified of the possible problem. Then it is up to the OSS to monitor the specific source for futher tainted code. Admittedly, it would be a bit of a pain to decide on the criteria for comparisions, but that is a different issue.
In a place beyond time and space, in a land far better than this, look for me there...
..I can't program an open source GORILLA.BAS for Gnulix?
*cries*
,
faeryman
If you read it you'll go blind!!!
:P
Prolly should of been AC for this one.
Thank you. Drive through. (:wq)
You'd think after this Microsoft would actually INSIST Outlook be secure, and other such things as removing scripting support...
...but alas, they probably won't, as they'd think it easier to just sue instead of rewrite.
I don't object to the decision of the developer. I do object to people complaining when a developer/company makes the decision not to Open Source their code. The staunchest advocates of Open Source believe that all code should be that way. And then those who also defend privacy issues say they have the right to their secrets. It's those people with this hypocritical viewpoint that I'm attacking.
I don't know about MS, but I work for Intel, and part of the condition of my employment is that ALL code I write, even on my own time, is owned by them unless I get prior written approval from a company lawyer. (The reasoning is that they don't want their trade secrets going into outside code, or to risk "contaminating" (their word) company IP with the GPL. To be fair to them, they readily grant waivers for open source projects.) Friends at other tech companies say they work under similar constraints.
I doubt that any company can constrain your coding significantly beyond the standard one year period the courts allow for non-compete agreements. That being said, can you afford to hire enough attorneys to defend your rights? That's one reason we have laws explicitly delineating rights instead of relying on the vague promises of the 10th Amendment.
In view of the possibility of OSS being contaminated with closed-source code, the use of a diversity of languages being used in OSS development is not just a good policy, it may end up affording some legal protection. Not being subject to the same forces of mindless conformity that prevail along the corporate C++/Java/VB axis, we ought to take advantage of it.
--
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
..it was being written by a bunch of hackers all along, of course they'd throw as many backdoors and exploitable "bugs" that they could fit in.. and of course the more code there is, the more bugs... Hobo
-HobophobE
-HobophobE
Nothing laughs forever.
> Its hard to hide 1000 *.c files ;)
you mean it's hard to hide 1000 *.vb files
heh
Really now.... I can see how, well, extreme Microsoft will be in beating down people who have anything that even claims to be Microsoft code. But we knew that before this whole event anyway, it's not as if anything has changed.
That, and how are they going to know who has it? It's almost like being as naive as those who think hackers are watching them all the time. Chances are they aren't, and if you take appropriate precautions you know they aren't (or can't)... that and the whole hackers vs. crackers thing, blah blah blah...
Point being, how would they KNOW if 5,000 people manage to download it from some anonymous FTP before that FTP is beaten down? Would they be able to track down all of them? Remember... I believe it's FreeNet, that British thing that is the uncentralized thing where every participant is a server..... the theory being that there's no way to take it down, unlike Napster where you just have to hit the center server.
In fact, that's the same thing as the inspiration for the internet (as opposed to Al Gore... sorry for the pres hit, hehe, I actually like Gore, more then Bush at least).... the internet was originally made as protection from the Cold War. No Such Agency and Big Brother have had computers for many many years, and they did have a communication network even back in 50s/60s... trouble was, it had one centralized server and a bunch of dummies... in a nuclear war, if the big server is hit the dummies are useless, military communication is crippled and the USA is dogmeat to those dirty communists. Anwyay, to defend from this the internet was created, thinking that since everything hooked up is basically a server, if one participant is fried the rest are still up, okay, and can communicate.
Now I'm not saying to go out and get MS source code. I'm not saying I would either. I'm just asking, will they really be able to tell about all the people who did, and get them so royally legally fried? I'm not asking about whether they have the legal rights, but if it's computer-ly possible.... as thinking about it off the top of my head I don't think it really would be.... if a couple thousand + people download it (and they will if it's ever released), it'll be a pain to get them ALL in trouble. I sure hope Big Brother isn't THAT big, yet at least...
Have someone (say, in Russia) read through the code for 'interesting' insights (such as how their undocumented protocols work, how they break competitor's products, how to work around some horrible bug, etc). That person (who you never talk to directly) then posts this info to a web page. You come along and read the web page. You've never looked at the Microsoft source code, but now you know the things you wanted/needed to know. Can you be held liable for that? I hope not?
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
.seineew era sremmargorp xuniL
"I have not failed. I've simply found 10,000 ways that won't work." --Thomas Edison
Actually, most of the Open Source/Privacy advocates I've met and talked to want privacy from corporate agents mostly. Essentially its individuals should have the right to all knowledge about corporations and (possibly, depends on who you talk to) individuals, and corporations shouldn't have access to any information about individuals. Kind of a double standard thing.
Personally, I agree with this stance. Corporations shouldn't have as many rights as individuals because of their greater ability and tendency to abuse those rights harming individuals and society in general. Unfortunately, the current trend in law is to give corporations more rights instead of taking away ones that they are abusing.
I either don't understand the article, or I don't understand the law. (or both)
.sigs too.
It would appear that once you have seen the source code, you can not work on anything else, for any one, ever. This would include MS employees who quit and go to work for another company. They might write MS influenced code for their new employer. Is the article saying that this is illegal????
Aside from that, as much as I dislike the Corporate ___, I still think their private stuff should be respected. But what if you stumble upon the code and don't realize it unitl it's too late. I don't know any P-12 telepaths to do a mind wipe. Am I forever forbidden to write any code for any body, for any reason????
Could a Lawyer please clearify???
Thanks,
Anonymous Coward
AC's need
Never attibute to competence that which can be explained by ... what do you mean you doubt they keep the code to W2000 in a folder called W2000? why not? Sure, they've probably got a code name, but once you identify it, it's probably called that on every machine. MS is not some magical kingdom which breaks all the rules. They pull their code on one JLE at a time like everybody else. Do you ROT13 all your folder names? Neither do they.
So they're seriously suggesting that anyone who's ever worked for Microsoft or a licencee is not allowed to work on an Open Source project attempting to mimic functionality ever in their life? That can't be right, and if it is, isn't that a huge threat to individual freedom?
I want to know, with all sincerity, how Microsoft could prosecute someone who has read their code. I was under the impression that trade secrets were only secrets. Right now I work at Panera Bread and to work there I had to sign a paper stating that I would not divulge their trade secrets. Why would they have to go through so much trouble if their super-secret secret sauce (assuming we had one) was already so vigorously defended?
In addition to not reading MS code, I strongly suggest that none of you execute any MS code. While reading it may have negative legal ramifications to your open source cause, executing it will DEFINITELY have negative effects on the operation of your computer.
"Frankly, I'll be surprised if they got anything more sensitive than a newer build of Whistler." I couldn't agree more. Chances are the hackers got the code to Minesweeper or Wordpad. I highly doubt that M$ would keep code to the kernel in a folder named "Kernel to W2000" or something of the sort. If M$ thinks there is a lot at stake here **(and they're probably the only ones that REALLY know what was stolen)...keep in mind that Mr. Bill himself has 60 Billion dollars to waste on lawyers. M$ really could afford to go after every person that they even *thought* might have looked at their code. Look at what they potentially have to lose.
I get SO tired of hearing this same crap over and over: "M$ will win because... M$ money can buy the best lawyers." and the closely related but not yet spotted (give it time): "M$ bought the judge!"
Look idiots - IF that were so, then why did MS lose the recent federal trial? Hmmm? IF they bought off the judge and have the best lawyers why is their entire existance dependent on surviving an appeal? Why didn't those best lawyers with the paid off judge just find MS innocent and have it end there?
Been seeing any black helicopters lately?
Being the Anglo-looking 'Spanic-Hick that I am. I usually type the way I talk. (ie, prolly, u, ur, ur's etc.)
:)
:wq
Very bad, but like u said. It works. But lets take a look at your reply Mr. Nazi.
>in increasing order of correctness
^^^
s/^in/In/
There should be some sort of punctuation after correctness.
Then again, I also could have said "Prolly should have been _AN_ AC for this one. No?
Thank you. Drive through. (:wq)
What> I thought that they wrote a virus that exploited a hole in Outlook, right? Am I wrong, or is Microsoft lying? Of course, I trust Microsoft to always tell the truth... Yeah, right.
SUWAIN: Slashdot User Without An Interesting Name
SUWAIN: Slashdot User Without An Interesting Name
You've clearly never used CORBA either. CORBA objects can't throw exceptions (because not all languages support exceptions, and even if they did, the broker would somehow have to figure out a translation between a common exception and the specific one used in the language)
Again, not all languages support strings the same way, thus conversions are necessary.
COM has no macros whatsoever. Macros are language dependant things. VB doesn't even support Macros, yet it has COM.
You're confusing specific language implemenations with the technology itself.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Any incoming stream can be manipulated into an actual file and a proper bot could send the necessary commands to continue paging if required. Any time you can view something, you can download it with a few software hacks. This is, in part, why virtually every attempt to make "secure" steams of music, news, whatever is doomed to fail.
While I have no doubt that MS is capable of something as underhanded as stealing the code from themselves to create bogus grounds for lawsuits against the samba and wine folks, my guess is that they probably did this for a much more mundane reason: PR.
Remember how MS (including Ballmer) was making rumblings about open-sourcing Windows, or at least loosening their existing source-licensing program? And then nothing happened and the press occasionally runs pithy pieces about MS just saying that to gain some open-source cachet, or because they are idiots.
But now they can say that they don't want to open up the windoze source because they don't want to give the hax0r5 cover to profit from the ill-gotten source by claiming they actually got it under the hypothetical legit open-source licensing. Not only does this give them a good reason to now not be open-sourcing windoze when they were considering it before, it also lets them switch the focus to how they are victimized by by the h4xors (who probably use open-source software, right). And while admitting that they've been 0wn3d isn't good PR, being the victim of open-source hax0rs makes it a lot easier for them to claim that they're just this innocent, hard-working, innovative company who couldn't possibly have a monopoly because there are all these threats that could take them down at any moment.
-Esme
But they don't have to. Just pick one or two high-profile members of the group, and target them. As soon as everyone else in the project finds out what's happening, the project is dead. It may not be possible to eradicate all OSS projects, but a few well-delivered blows could seriously cripple most of the useful stuff out there. Besides, MS would likely only target those things that pose a threat to them. I doubt that they'd go after anyone working on vi, for instance.
Question: When has Microsoft ever shown fear of any entity??? This is part of the reason they're perpetually in trouble with DOJ/FTC/etc...
Where the value of X-Mailer: is the true measure of a man...
But think, there goes the advantage of using Linux. Now if someone encounters a bug in windows, they can get the source now and fix it. :)
aren't you afraid you might offend someone?
--
That's funny, I'm working in Corba as we speak and I'm throwing exceptions all over the place. Corba provides mapping of some kind non-exception languages (how I don't know, I've only used C++).
"It was me against the world, I was sure that I'd win.... but the world fought back, punished me for my sins" - Social D
__
Wouldn't Microsoft have to provide source code for the trial record to prove where they believe to be the stolen source resides? I doubt they'd be willing to do that.
Firstly, I would imagine that you would need someone in the project to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt as having access to the stolen source code. MS can't just point and scream at every OSS project claiming poor. Secondly, if that did happen, wouldnt you then need to prove the person who had looked at the source code, used it in the OSS project. Which begs the question, how do u do that??? What constitutes using code from another source. Often people use code, but will rewrite it for there situation, more the idea behind the code is used.
-- Cheer, Cheer, The Red and the White.
Sounds strange? Think about the following reasons. We've seen many times previously that MSFT avoids admitting their own mistakes for as long as they possibly can. It takes them awhile to warn the public about known bugs or exploits in their various software products. Yet, in this case of the stolen source, they were seemingly very willing to let the press know about the break-in and apparent theft of the source code.
Now that it is public knowledge that some MSFT source code has been stolen, imagine what it does for free/open-source development. Because of this, the FSF and other maintainers of free/OSS software now have to take extra measures to ensure that the code is free of any potential influence of the supposed 'stolen code'. This takes time, effort, and will generally serve to slow-down the development open-source software projects. A big 'plus' for MSFT.
Also, suppose someone posts snippets of the 'Forbidden Source' to various newsgroups, like the public postings of DeCSS and MSFT's kerberos additions to slashdot. Or, say, someone emails some of this code to the kernel mailing list directly. Now, nearly the entire team of linux developers, among other projects, has seen the 'forbidden source'. IANAL, but MSFT could possibly use the fact that they saw the 'forbidden source' as justifications that now they're now privy to MSFT's proprietary software models. They may use this fact to either sue future developers, or inhibit future development of such projects. Both of these things are bad for OSS/free software, and are good for MSFT.
This may sound like some grand paranoid conspiracy theory and doomsday scenario, but as someone posted to LinuxToday, "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you."
make world, not war
The link is correct, just labelled incorrectly. Sorry!
__
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
--
I like to watch.
Can you give even one example, or even a reasonable analogy to support this claim? This is patently absurd.
Open source software works because people _choose_ to sacrifice some small amount of potential individual gain for the sake of a larger net gain - and they directly reap the rewards of participating in and contributing to this development and distribution model. Emphasis on choose.
These same people wish to choose who has access to their personal information, for valid and obvious reasons. Again, the concept of choice is key.
Many or most oss projects begin because those using the particular technology available at a given time/place/price want a better choice, be it an os, a web server, a browser, you name it.
See a pattern here? CHOICE.
There is no conflict.
There is no hypocrisy.
The issue is always WHO CHOOSES combined with WHO PROFITS. When anonymous companies profit by trading on my personal and private information, my anger is not hypocritical just because I advocate free software. Not many people think the way to promote oss is cracking proprietary code and making it public. THAT would be hypocritical, to support breaking into private networks with the intent to profit from stealing contents therein. BUT NOBODY SUPPORTS THIS. Which is why your dichotomous view is misguided and silly.
La via sola al paradiso incommincia nel inferno
Warning, this post contains code stolen directly from Microsoft.
include ifstream.h
please act accordingly.
--
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
If you think MS would allow propietary source to be 'stolen', why would they state to the media that the code accessed was unrelated to the current offerings? If they wanted to screw with the OSS community they would claim the entire Win9x/NT/2000 codebase was snatched up. The .NET stuff was possibly involved in this 'theft' and is currently not, afaik, in beta-testing even. We're talking years down the road for OSS scrutiny on an unreleased product which MS will severly alter because of this.
It is very true. Those who wish to be involved with Free Source movements must be sure to steer clear of any stolen source code, Microsoft or not.
You must ask yourself this: If the code were stolen from some guy who is struggling to support his family on some shareware app he sells for $10, are you going to go ahead and accept that code, distribute it, or use it in your projects? I think not. If you think that somehow the rules don't scale, then you are mistaken. If something is true on an individual level, it should be true on all levels.
You shouldn't try to "bend" the rules just to suite your goals, no matter how noble they may seem.
-----
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
When msc 5.x came out it was a much better compiler than any other that MS had ever developed before. At that point its optimiers actualy worked but like most it had a few flaws. Funny thing is that most of the flaws were the same that gcc had.
Now if someone just had time to prove that some of the code was lifted it could be quite interesting.
Reading the code wouldn't necessarily land you in legal trouble; nor would contributing to a Free software project IF you could prove that you did not use the knowledge gained by reading the source code in that project. There lies the problem. It's much easier to document that people have had no access to such knowledge and, therefore couldn't use it than it is to document that people had the knowledge but selectively "forgot" the knowledge when working on a similar project.
A good legal example of such a case was the Compaq black-box reverse-engineering of, if I remember correctly, an IBM PC BIOS for their "portable" (read: a thirty five pound plastic, hernia-inducing box).
I might have one or more of the companies confused, but I do remember the loss of the lawsuit because of the levels of documentation kept on the project.
/tma
----
FRB's Conspiracy Theory:
MS and the DOJ/FBI/NSA have staged this "hack" so that
1. MS can now hinder the Free Software Movement by suing (or at least threatening to sue) the pants off of the developer / maintainers / packagers of said software because they used stolen code.
2. The gvm't can use this to push harder for legislation that erodes your civil liberties in the name of "law enforcement"
I now return you to peering at your window at the black helicopters.....
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
- Ed the Sock
that they'd 'stolen' the source code so that people could laugh at it .... (of course it wasn't stolen like a car is stolen - it was copied - information works differently than physical things ...)
Then it would obviously be in Microsoft's interests to have the code stolen and published widely, because then they'd have the legal right to sue almost anyone they wanted for copyright infringement. I mean, what is this "don't download, don't read" shit? Like it's gonna burn your eyeballs or something? What say you saw it by "accident" - honest, your Honour, someone stuck it in front of my face.. I'm just glad your fucked-up US legal system is basically meaningless outside your borders. Despite what you may think to the contrary.
Not only that, but even in high profile cases, just seeing source code or even signing an NDA does not disqualify you from working in the same area. Many consultants work for many companies in the same domain. Heck, Microsoft themselves hires engineers away from competitors.
The opensource/freesoftware worlds are currently dominated by fussy little hairsplitters who have spent far too much time working on their licenses. The licenses are important, don't get me wrong, and somebody needed to work on them. But usually, when your lawyer is done you send him home, because lawyerthink is not the best for running things.
Also, one should take the caution against knowingly passing illegal copies of anything around, not because the ideas would taint you, but the crime might.
It was a minor project. Probably the IPv6 stack. Now Microsoft can claim other implementations are based on their code. Then they truly will 0wn 7h3 1Nt3rn37.
Question of curiosity: Unless this was an inside job, the intrusion took place over the Net. That is, a public network. Let's say, as in the above post, that it becomes very widespread and that someone develops a competing product with similar functionality (but, obviously, not cut and pasted source).
If MS sues the company for copyright infringement on the basis of similar functionality, couldn't the company in question turn around and sue MS corporate security to recover legal fees and damages for gross negligence in connecting the repositories to a public network without adequate safeguards?
If that seems clear cut, imagine this scenario: MS security is provided by a third party; the incident above happens.
Ye gods, I had no idea that two dozen people had already suggested this! That's what I get for browsing at too high a threshhold. I'm just bitter and paranoid, really. ;^)
Sheesh say way from that code you could get sued by Apple too.
There's at least one other possibility.
It was someone who isn't really after Microsoft code just to get the Microsoft code. It could be someone after Microsoft code to find security flaws in older, installed products. Products that Microsoft is no longer updating yet are still installed on many, many machines (like Windows 95 or NT3.5). If, by reading (not downloading, not uploading, but just looking at) the code, they can find a hole, 85% (or whatever number they use today) of the desktop machines in the world are vulnerable to attack. Why risk going after Microsoft when you've got the rest of the world ripe for the picking and they probably don't even realize it?
If it were me, I wouldn't waste time on "upcoming" or beta products. I'd go after the older stuff that's already installed, and therefore unlikely to be updated. Stuff that no one is paying attention to any more except to run things like, oh, Quicken or MS Money.
Do the actuall consumers benefit from this? Will they ever get a enhanced "stable" code? Nah, Microsoft will probably set up up a huge publicity stunt to drive fear of anyone using an altered Windoze, threating with plenty of years in prison. Will The developers benefit from this? Actually how many developers could benefit from this? only the ones who want to emulate or something like that windoze code (which are very few compared to all the software projects), which would be under strict survailence by Microsoft. So at the end Who benefits? No one if you ask me. Homo Homo Sapiens - Man that knows that knows, how egocentric can humanity get
Those old advertising jedy tricks won't work on me
If the code is copyrighted, that means you can't cut and paste it into your own code. Don't worry about that, the code will be so bloated and poorly written that no project maintainer with half a clue will just paste it into their project anyway.
Not only that, but similar to the GPL violations that were fixed by removing the offending code, the same will hold true for an Open Source project (if, for some odd reason, they do accept copyrighted Microsoft source code into their project). Simply rewrite the part that violates Microsoft's copyright.
If they've patented the code, then you can't even write a compatible algorithm, so this source code theft means nothing anyway.
On all fronts, Open Source project authors are in the clear. Calm down.
AC -- I will not sign up for a user account until the karma cap is revoked!
I have a huge pile of DEC Sources, everything needed to build from scratch a VAX/VMS system (versions 2.0 up to 4.4). I also have piles of technical information and design information for buckets of DEC PDP/11 and VAX hardware. All of the above has been acquired lawfully over the past 20 years.
Am I therefore prohibited in using my personal knowledge to benefit open source software? Do I have to seek Compaq's permission to release open source software?
On a wider note, as I work with closed source software all day as part of my normal job, does this also disqualify me participating in OSS projects? I don't think so, because if it did, a lot of people on the linux kernel credits list would be in trouble for a start.
What if any Microsoft programmers, who have presumably legally seen sources, joined an OSS project? Would Microsoft be able to stop them? The possibility for nasty legal precendents is rather alarming.
Yes, and I have considered the possibility that this "leak" may well have been a carefully staged event that would give M$ leverage to go after OSS projects. As you say, they could tie up certain key OSS projects in mindless legal wrangling, and effectively destroy the projects--all this on the (unproven) suspiscion that there is M$ code in the projects.
I believe this is potentially a carefully contrived plot to "release" M$ source covertly, claiming it was "stolen", in the hopes of destroying the OSS threat to M$ domination.
As support for this view, does anyone really imagine that M$ develop their nearest and dearest on Winboxen? Nah, for sure they use some *NIX, because they know their cash cows are full of holes and they want to _protect_ their crown jewels at all costs. Therefore, anything of value is safely locked away from every wannabe haxor in the world. No way could anyone get the code.
Ergo, M$ are responsible for the leak and OSS needs to be very careful.
Frogboy
Tell that to that kid from -- where was it? -- Sweden? Norway?
Jon something... Jan something...
He's 16.. deCSS..
aww.. I forget.
t_t_b
--
I think not; therefore I ain't®
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
I wonder if we'll soon be seeing lots of angry press-releases from Redmond, claiming that (insert your favourite open-source project here) has 'obviously' used code 'stolen' from Microsoft?
See, its not so simple for Microsoft to CLAIM that your favorite open source project has 'obviously' used code 'stolen' from Microsoft. Rather, they have to PROVE it. In Court. Where Exhibit A becomes Microsoft's source code, and Exhibit B becomes OSP Source code. IE, a matter of public record. I'm pretty sure Microsoft wants this one to quietly go away.
Reading source code is like reading a book. The author/publisher of the book are not going to accuse you of making illegal copies of the book because you read words from it. Yet, proprietary software makers think this is entirely reasonable.
Similarly, copying sentences word for word from a book or even paraphrasing those words is considered plagiarism. Instead of just reading their ideas, you are copying their original work and claiming it is your own. However, it is not wrong to use the book for reference and write your own book using similar or opposing ideas but all written originally by you. Any quotes you make you provide as a source and give proper credit to the author in your bibliography.
Writing proprietary software is a lot like writing proprietary books. How many proprietary books have you signed an NDA to read? How many of those have been stolen by evil pirates and released over the internet for authors to "steal" ideas from or plagiarize.
I rest my case, court adjourned.
"God prevent we should ever be twenty years without a revolution." -- Thomas Jefferson
I haven't looked at how QAZ works, but wouldn't it get installed and then listen on some port?
Doesn't microsoft keep all of their users behind a firewall? If so, QAZ would just be opening a port on the users computer behind the firewall, no one should be able to get in and actually connect to it, there would have to be a hole poked in the firewall for that to happen.
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
Only that one person, and not unsolicited at that. :)
Read from the beginning, I'm sure you'll agree that he/she/it indeed is a moron.
Pretty cool idea, almost blow-my-mind insightful, although not quite...
I'm hoping that the problem isn't quite is grim as you portray it. You show it as a very computer "If A, then must not have B" thing going on here..... I'm thinking that it might be possible to balance the two if you add in a third element, something that sooo many people seem to be lacking these days... just a touch of common sense.
Really, take it on a case-by-case issue. Yes it sometimes sounds good to make huge generalizations and sweeping "always" and "never" statements, but it's often better to look at specific occasions. Examples:
Well, enough said. Yes, you can't clamor for both privacy and open source at the same time, fair enough. However, a balance can be maintained where you say "Yes, MS has rights to privacy if they want, but I have the right to say I like open source and want to go out and make Linux, but I myself have the right for privacy when it comes to certain aspects of my personal life".... i.e. I believe in free source code, but not necessarily big brother and telescreens and every bit of info being "free".
I think that a lot of Slashdotters went off their meds simultaneously, today. There's no other possible way to explain the weird paranoia that crops up every time this source code theft is mentioned.
Conspiracy theory #1 - Microsoft faked it
Come on. Microsoft does not possess an oracle that tells them things like "if you fake being hacked, your stock will stay high, people will not abandon your products (quite the possibility at the server end), and you'll get lots of clout in drafting new anti-hax0r legislation". And if you don't have that kind of oracle, you're not going to go out and pretend that you got hacked so that you can score some political points against the free software movement.
They stand to lose far more business from 10% of their potential server market shifting to Sun/IBM/whoever (or deciding to stay with Sun) than they stand to gain from slightly helping the cause of some vague, unenforcable laws directed at reverse engineering.
Yes, Microsoft will try to get as much advantage as they can from this. That's no suprise.
Conspiracy theory #2 - Free software people did it
If free software types (or supporters of same) were behind it, don't you think that someone would have seen the sources on freenet or some random ftp site by now? Or at least heard a couple of well-substantiated stories to that effect? ("I saw a huge tarball called microsoft-sources.tar.Z on ftp://....").
Far more likely, it's either some script kiddiez, who probably didn't even get it together to the point where they could get the source in any useful form, or some low-level industrial espionage people who are discreetly shopping around their product to various shady firms.
Incidentally, if it's the latter case, I wouldn't anticipate seeing the source showing up anywhere for free; why would the people who stole the source for profit give it away for free?
Even though we may agree with the ideas of microsoft we have to respect thier right to "thier creations".
I do believe open source can make a better product if done right. But that does not give any one else the right
to demand that other people also follow that same principle. If Microsoft does not wish for me to have
access to the thier code I have to respect thier wishes. If I do come accross thier code I would tempted
but I do not think I would get it because I know it is wrong.
Simple.. whomever you send your fixes to would probably take credit. "Look sir.. I fixed that BSOD problem... we should have checked that string for a termination BEFORE sending it into the function."
;)
whatever.
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
Goldenboy: Um, Bill, ever since you made us code the new Kernel in Visual basic, Windows has run like a dog. Who's ever heard of a OS kernel running on a buggy interpreter?
BillG: Perhaps kid, but the plan is that we'll make the thing into a self replicating Outlook attachment, and windows will TAKE OVER THE WORLD!
Goldenboy: But wouldn't that only work on Outlook on machines running on Windows already?
BillG: Why do you think we are porting office to linux!
Goldenboy: You are a evil clever man boss![Goldenboy Hi-5's BillG]
BillG: Spank me!
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
I've heard that big time, really famous song writers are instructed (by their legal eagles) to NOT LISTEN to compositions by amateur songwriters (for legal reasons) because they may accidentally unconsciously plagarize part of it and get hit with a lawsuit.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
I was told by a fella who hosted some exchange students from France the secret of the french 'aroma'. Apparently, they can't run their economy well enough to have cheap hot water so they economize on the showers. After a week of smeling french toes he had enough and flat out told them to bathe more frequently. They did and he had no problems on the subject thereafter.
Just one more proof that socialism stinks!
DB
While your explanation of damage control is quite plausible I can see an alternative explanation:
1. Breach is first detected, everyone is in a panic and assumes the worst.
2. After a little checking it turns out not to be as bad as they thought at first.
3. After careful analysis of logs, including the version control management logs it turns out that no modification took place and only a minor future product has been downloaded.
----
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
With 521 comments already, probably no one will ever read this but -- I have to say that in the 3+ years I've been reading Slashdot, this is the single most idiotic, clueless, divorced-from-reality discussion I have ever seen. I haven't been this embarassed to be part of the free software world since Eric Raymond marched on Microsoft dressed as Obi-Wan.
So why don't we call the same 'Foul' against MS every time they release a product? I mean, if they can make up some BS about us stealing their code, why can't we do the same to them? After all, ours is there for anyone to look at.
Once you turn it around it becomes obvious that MS has very little solid ground to stand on with this issue. Not only are they saying 'Oh, actually, noone got anything, we were wrong,' but they have the balls to still levy litigation at any little OSS project they desire.
#include "stdio.h"
void vGenCrash(void);
int iWinMain(int argc, char **argv)
{
vGenCrash();
return 0;
}
void vGenCrash(void)
{
vPaintBlueScreen();
vGenerateRandomSetOfWeirdLookingRegDumps();
return;
}
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
WINE isn't in danger. I doubt it will ever put a dent on windows installation base. The Apache devels are those that should watch out for M$ lawyers. Next release of the http server will be greeted by M$'s flabbergasted PRs muttering how shocked they all were when they saw IIS's core features & algorithms glowing in Apache's src...
Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
[Quote from KissTheBlade:]
In many ways, modern multinationals are excellent institutions. They are highly transparent, for example, especially when compared to the government buerocracies that the WTO protestors and the like adore so.
[Me:]
This is an absolutely absurd fantasy that reminds me of Soviet propaganda about how the Soviet Union had been a workers state. KissTheBlade's beloved multinationals are, in fact, big bureaucracies, whether he likes to admit that or not.
Furthermore, the WTO, which KissTheBlade seems to love, is itself a government bureaucracy.
[Quote from KissTheBlade:]
The fact is that these companies are owned by Mr&Mrs Average, and the shareholders put an incredible amount of pressure on them to perform and demand information on their performance & intentions. They are the ones controlling the multinationals.
[Me:]
This is an absolutely absurd fantasy. Stock is essentially adult Pokemon cards, and most stockholders don't get into detailed policy decisions of the companies they hold stock in. Furthermore, the largest chunks of stock are owned by various institutional investors, which makes KissTheBlade's workers-state fantasy look even more absurd.
(Note: I don't believe this for a second, but even so, it's a nice conspiracy theory. Give me a couple of days and I'll work the Illuminati and the Knights Templar in as well...)
;)
Don't forget the freemasons, NSA, WTO, NATO, the G-8, and for good measure the EU.
--
Frankly, I don't think this story brings anything new. It was obvious that conspiracy theories would start flowing after the announcement of the Microsoft stolen source-code. I believe that no serious open-source developer would ever derive something from illegally acquired code. It seems obvious to me that they would think about it for 5 seconds before NOT doing it. In a closed-source environment, some might do it because it's easier to hide. Going back to k5...
All humans are mortal. Socrates is a human. Socrates is dead.
For exactly the same reason we keep pushing the opinion that the CSS "trade secret" was not obtained illegally, and therefor is not prohibited from being distributed, we must not look at the Windows source code, should it be made available.
Any piece of information there can be regarded as a trade secret. It was not reverse engineered. It was not released by MS. It was stolen!! This means - read that, and you are bound by trade secret laws not to redistribute the information. If this information is, in any way, useful for a project you are working on, you are screwed. Noone, not even you, can now claim that you have not taken any idea from the MS sources.
In short - leave it be. Don't touch it.
Both are copyrighted. If the assertion that a developer cannot look at the stolen source are true (without exposing a product to jeopardy), then wouldn't someone who's done MFC development and looked at the MFC source be at risk in the same way? In both cases, MS could alledge that its copyrighted code has been copied. Anyone care to explain this?
Open Source programmers should stay away from the Windows sourcecode, and wait until the intruders find parts of GPL'ed code.
my other sig is a 500 page novel
Yeah, that was pretty good book.
Who was the author? (I read it online, but I want to buy it in dead tree form)
I know offtopic, but revelant to this thread. E books are coming that are in a locked NDA bound format that can not be copied and read on another machine.
The truth shall set you free!
It's very simple. Have some code "Stolen," then use the whole "intellectual Property" issue to destroy the Linux Vendors a few upgrades from now. Don't you remember the Halloween documents? The proposal that Trade Secret Laws could be used to destroy open source???
Six months from you you'll see the SAMBA and WINE teams being sued. M$ will win because the judges know nothing about computers and M$ money can buy the best lawyers.
Oh well. I've been meaning to look at BEos for a while now anyway.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
So MS deliberately staged this 'theft' to kill open-source software? After all, how can anyone *prove* that they didn't look at the Windows or Office source code?
OK, everyone. I'm getting scared, and here's why:
What happens if M$ had planted chunks of code from another project (Wine for example) into one of their source trees (Windows in this case), a year or so ago, and claims now that that code was their own? They could use this kind of accusation to shut down competitive software projects (if those projects can't defend themselves).
Whose burden would it be to prove who actually wrote the code? I'm guessing that with all of their bureaucracy, M$ would have their project history better documented (even if falsified).
Or is there a reliable way to even prove that one person or another wrote it first?
I wouldn't consider M$'s corporate espionage ninjas to be above stealing code in order to persecute independent hackers...
If anyone finds matching code, don't assume that means Microsoft will be in trouble.
Suppose I used to work for the Evil Empire, saw the light, and became born again in the warm fuzzy glow of free software and open-source. Should/Does this preclude my contributions to an Open Source project? Am I endangering the project by contributing? (one swift lawsuit could quash many a small project that has no backing)
This almost seems like I have to register myself as a lethal weapon, like Im some Kung-Fu master.
??
.sig wanted: Must be concise, funny, and display my cleverness.
I don't typically respond to articles posted by Anonymous Coward, but you raise some good points about my original response. I wrote my original response on about two hours of sleep, so now as I reread it, I know I wasn't clear on a lot of things, so I apologize on that. And I promise not to flame; I don't believe in it (which is why I'm so good at discussing politics and religion with people). Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even if mine is always the correct one. (*laugh* I'm just kidding.) I'll get to your Whistler comment in a second...
My issue is not with the Service Packs; I used them as an example only. When there is a bug in a Linux product, there is faster turnaround time than with a Microsoft product. That's all I meant. I don't know who you've been talking to, but I always hear the typical "Wait for the service pack" response. Sometimes, yes, to its credit, Microsoft may release a Hot Fix, but that's usually for severe bugs that influence the operating system itself -- not the actual products they release. To me, Linux is better than Windows all around because of the kernel stability. Linux is a solid OS on the base level; the applications that sit on the kernel may not be developed as solidly as the kernel, but I don't see the kernel crashing just because an application goes ballistic. Micrsoft built Windows 2000 with more inherent stability than NT; I'll admit that I have seen the Blue Screen of Death only once since April. But that doesn't mean that I don't still have to reboot if an application does go south on Windows. So don't think I'm picking on Windows; Goliath got his head smacked with a rock, so I'm not about to stand here and laugh.
Now to your Whistler comment. I don't think Linux will ever be in any danger -- unless Microsoft decides to either A) assimiliate Linux into Windows (which is probably likely to happen at some point, but I believe that for my own reasons), or B) decides to make their own distribution of Linux. I have a close friend here in Austin that I've known for two years; he works here at Dell and is on the Whistler project -- though I don't really know all what he does. And he still uses Linux primarily -- he has a Windows ME station that he plays games on, but that's about the extent of it. No matter how good Whistler is, Linux will always be around.
Seth Anderson BTW, I'm not 23 anymore -- I am TexasCowboy26 now. =)
Would you turn down specifications that were engineered from tainted sources?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
But I never claimed that MS did this on purpose.
I'm just presenting one possible way in which they can recover their "losses" (real or perceived).
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Anyone understand what that statement is supposed to mean at all? How can they know that the source was ``only'' viewed? If the cracker was viewing the code, then copied-and-pasted out of his xterm/browser/whatever, then he has a permanent, downloaded copy! I suspect the use of these words is an attempt to fool non-technical people.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Good lord you're paranoid!!! Seek professional help!
You've never heard of just throwing out an idea to see what discussion it generates? I don't believe I ever stated that "this is what I firmly believe."
It's just an idea, people. If you can't handle the thought of discussing strange and wacky concepts, you need to read some other website.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
..if someone starting sending MS diffs with improvements to the code!
I am anarch of all I survey.
i said what you "may" feel to the contrary. If you don't feel that, then the statement doesn't apply, numbnuts
The answer to this is obviously to base code outside the US. US law does not apply and ouside the US and M$ would not be able to put such a ridiculous interpretations on the law anywhere else. In Europe they would have to show that the source WAS the stolen code, it would not be relevant that the coder had seen the stolen code. The burden of proof would require that M$ show that the coder DID use the stolen code, not simply MAY have.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
This is a very doable project provided we have acess to windows source code. I'm not sure of the legalities but I'm pretty sure of one thing...MS uses GPL'd code in their products. Lets prove it and force them to make Office public domain. I could care less about the rest of their embrace and extend crap. If Office was free, we could be rid of them.
no sig.
"Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk ?"
stuff
...and say the sky is falling or that i even think anarchy is the way to go...and without going into any of my own personal theories too deep, isn't that the way we are heading? isn't it? i mean, i have never seen any fire/explosion diminished by adding fuel to it? have you? especially one where both sides are defending something of value (to them - money/power/freedom) basically with their lives. is this a little extreme or catastrophic? maybe. very far off the mark? maybe not. think about it, don't just flame it.
"The security breach did not involve a security vulnerability in any Microsoft product."
It's good to know Microsoft isn't even running there own software for there network.
Or perhaps what they mean is, "The security breach was due to our inability to setup a secure network using our own software".
Whatever the case, if they run microsoft software for there network - the security was breached because of that software. Whether it be a hole in the software itself, or due to Microsoft having such horrible standard installations which are loaded with security flaws - it is a result of that software or it's installer.
Ace
No, it sounds like these puppies were real pros. If I was running a master criminal organization, stealing source to Microsoft code would be the best way to evaluate weaknesses in their code and use that quietly to hack into the world's biggest companies and banks undetected and run off with billions. Or how about hacking into foreign government intranets to get their secrets? Remember that this code has not received a critical eye looking at it with the intent to covertly break into it.
There are real risks to the world going to 100% Microsoft solutions. It's like royal families inbreeding in medieval times. It ain't good and it's getting worse.
Just think, your entire company may be Microsoft on the desktop, but at least the back ends are still something else. But soon no more. To leverage those nifty Active Directory benefits you need to move your DNS, LDAP, and Kerberos services to Windows 2000. Then you'll start to see the real benefits of moving that web server to IIS and e-mail to Exchange 2000.
The real thing to fear here is what's going to happen behind closed doors outside of Redmond...
I just don't understand the logic in trusting corporate and often national security interests running software you are unable to audit written by a private company whose only concern is maximizing their revenue and market share.
...just to be on the "safe" side.
Consider. Free project GNUFoo comes out which competes with Microsoft Active FUBAR 2000. If it looks popular, M$ can just state that "there's a possibility that our proprietary source code influenced this design," and instantly GNUFoo is dropped like a hot potato.
Now, there's none of M$'s code in GNUFoo, but the FSF and the GNUFoo programmers now have to prove that, because in the Real World you are presumed guilty until proven innocent, and even then you're still guilty of looking guilty.
And in the years that it takes to satisfy the courts that GNUFoo is guilty of nothing but competing against The Man, the project will slowly grind to a halt. By the time GNUFoo is cleared of wrongdoing, M$ will have released their next project, and GNUFoo will be useless because it's so outdated.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
God forgive us.
"God prevent we should ever be twenty years without a revolution." -- Thomas Jefferson
I stand (Or sit to be more accurate) corrected.
I remembered the story from a PBS documentary years ago. (Circa 1995) and must have messed up on the company name.
Of course, the point wasn't about the company, but the whole idea of having one team hack the product and the other design a new one based on what they learned.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Obviously MS have an excuse to sue if one person looks, but where's the harm in everybody looking? After all, the Windows programmers have had access to every piece of code ever relased under the GNU Public License since 1984! What I'm saying is based on the hypothetical that Windows source is / will be generally available, but then that's what all the don't-look-don't-touch hysteria is based on too.
On the offchance this is the case, why should one free software programmer fear litigation for implementing something that MS also implemented? What's to stop the programmer of some major open source software taking the opportunity to scrutinise Windows for appropriated ideas from GPL code? Obviously no free software programmer would be idiot enough to cut and paste Windows code, so if we're arguing on the stealing of `ideas' from code, and code from both sides is available for scrutiny, surely lawsuits could fly both ways?
I can see why the Samba / Wine people might be more wary than most but MS would have a very hard time grinding all international free software devleopment to a halt just because windows_src.zip turned up on a few FTP sites.
Matthew @ Bytemark Hosting
I know maybe this sounds a little parynoid, but with the past history of this company I think that anything is possible with them. They are a moralless company that sees nothing but there profits. They say that they listen to there users and that there users want more features and don't care about security. That is a load and they know it.
On another hand, if Microsoft cannot secure there OWN software system and there network security is that crapy, do you really wnt ot be runnign that software? I mean really who leaves the source code to the OS connected to a system that is connected to the internet. Oh that's right they created that pptp crap and forgot to put security in in.
Microsoft gives new meaning to VPN, Very Public Network!
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Only 'flamers' flame!
Searching for GPL'ed code in MS's software, even with the source code, could be an interesting project. The best approach would probably be first to write a program that compares only commented sections and looks for complete comments which A)match exactly, B)are over a certain length, and C)do not pass a spellcheck (nothing is more damning than comment typos which match up). Then, get together all the GPL'ed source code you can find (this is difficult, there's a massive amount of it and it'd take a long time to download and be difficult to store). Then, systematically compare all of MS's code to GPL'ed code. This would be a very slow task, and would have to be run over several nights. Then a human looks over the results, throws out the (probably numerous) false matches, and mails what's left to the EFF.
------------------
A picture is worth 500 DWORDS.
by stealing the source to Linux, BSD, and FSF software!
"Open code, in other words, can be a check on state power." -Lawrence Lessig
I am really amused about how this company claims to offer "security" in their products. LOL. Not that anyone worth their salt actually gives any credence to their claims; we know their stuff is shit. On the one hand they offer a public facade of competence in the arena of "security" and then on the other hand they cannot say it enough how they have called in the FBI to investigate. Does this strike anybody else as absurd? If they're so good why can't they figure it out by themselves? The answer is clearly obvious even to the most casual observer.
In another vein, what's to prevent either (a) MS claiming their proprietary stolen code was used in ANY product they see that they don't like or (b) other people, for whatever reason, sprinkling their code with BS comments to make it "look like" it came from the purloined source code even if it didn't? Me, I'm immediately hamming up all my comment headers in my code to say "This Code Stolen From Microsoft".
The little guy is once again going to get the shaft when all this plays out in one way or another. Watch and see. You'll have to prove you didn't get your source code from MS the same way you have to prove you're not a drug abuser by pissing in a cup, even though there's no reason to suspect otherwise.
One thing occured to me with regard to the Samba team and all; if looking at M$' code is such a problem what about code they have publically disclosed. Some bits of genuine Windows code have been included with their (not third party) development products and publications if I recall correctly. So, to use the Samba example, suppose one of those code snippets documented a key aspect of M$' SMB implementation could a Samba developer use that code?
If any of the stolen code shows up, i think it would be negligent if someone didn't review it and make sure that it didn't have any gpl code in it. If one line of gpl code is found, the whole works would become gpl, this is the rule. Has anybody considered this aspect?
Maybe that just want their code fixed so leaked it out and hope to get their hands on the fixed version after a bit...
rhino
Because it feels like something I've done before, yeah I could fake it but I'd still want more...
int Junk_Code = 1; So nobody use that, or the FBI might pay you a visit.
I'd say more than that. If you're a developer you can no longer open any email from anyone other than those you already know, maybe even having to have someone screen them for you. Imagine this scenario;
To:Linus Torvaldes[Torvaldes@transmeta.com]
From:Billy Bob [bill-b@notmicrosoft.com]
Subject: Kernel Patch.
blah blah blah (insert MS code here).
Or worse yet sending it to the kernel mailing list, tainting all the relevent people in one fell swoop? Even if MS doesn't do it, there are plenty of people out there with nothing better to do than try to fuck up other people's day.
Fist Prost
"We're talking about a planet of helpdesks."
Fist Prost
"We're talking about a planet of helpdesks."
-Jaron Lanier
As soon as I heard the initial story, my immediate thought was that it was phony. It still doesn't make sense to me why M$ would publicly admit to being violated.
/. concerning WINE's ability to run Office and 2000 to be just the kind of incitement that M$ would feel the need to react.
I think this is one step in a short proc, to put WINE and other Windows emulators completely out of business. I find the proximaty to recent announcements in
Normally I don't go for the whole black-helicopter theory, but this is just TOOOOOoooo close, and way too wrong to be real.
The problems with M$, with understanding anything they do, what, when or why, is of course, the secrecy.
Do I think that this will slow down the OpenSource community in the least... No!
Secrecy is a double-edged sword. Any Linux distro could be entered into public record without a ripple. In fact that might be a good idea to do so now in preparation for any potential eventuality.
But I don't see M$ dragging their APIs and source code into court for the public record anytime soon. That's what they would have to do to even allege with intent to procecute against anyone for supposedly stealing any of their code.
They would have to identify the code and prove it came from them and the only way to do that is by bringing their own code to court and doing so in such a way as to prove the code repository had not been tampered with since the discovery of the break in.
Then M$ would have to argue that it could not possibly have come from any other source but their code. All a developer has to do is keep a clear paper trail of what ideas come, as they come, and the very plausibility of the defense would dispell any allegation M$ might make.
Making those allegations is a great deal more difficult than you think... Basically, M$ has a choice that I doubt they'd ever make even when their backs were against the wall.
If you live in secrecy, you can't step into the sunlight too quickly. I think we're safe from an open source M$ for a long time to come.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
--begin signed conspiracy theory block--
That's pretty much what they did with the Kerberos specs, after putting them out with the click-wrap license. We probably even gave them the idea for something like this by publishing their paper without consent.
Fist Prost
"We're talking about a planet of helpdesks."
Fist Prost
"We're talking about a planet of helpdesks."
-Jaron Lanier
So, the only think you can find wrong with my argument is the spelling of one word.
Thank you. You defeat in this debate has been noted.
"If you can not attack his logic and reasoning, attack his spelling. Loudly"
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Actually they would probaly DCMA all the providers and web hosters.
Get one or two monkeys to put up MS code on Sourceforge and that will cause them trouble.
They just need a case or two of bad publicity to hurt 'evil' free software people, who just steal and destroy from hardworking innovative companies.
Maybe he should patent that as a business process. Hmmm... One-Click Acquisition?
--
Intelligence is definitely a recessive trait.
If, in some devious backroom meeting, MS decided once and for all to kill open source all they would have to do is allow is allow some non-vital, but interesting code to be available for a hack, have some blackops MS crony post it to Slashdot, ask all coders if they read Slashdot regularly, then fight every open source code release on licensing issues until the point becomes moot.
Not that I'm saying they'd DO that, but it's possible.
TheGeek
TheGeek
http://www.geekrights.org
Kill the monkey
Apple are changing their OS to OS X, based on BSD Unix, thats cool, no loss of face, they are developing their OS further - its still going to be way cool and very technicaly competent.
MS couldn't make such a leap without big loss of face - unless they were forced to make such a change because their proprietary OS had been copied and compromised.
Its a good excuse that saves them from having to answer questions about what was wrong with the old OS.
Microsoft is an excellent marketing company - not a software developer.
in fact that's now "Disneyland Paris"
Clearly the previous respondent cannot tell a stack crawl from a core dump.
To start, I'll admit that I'm no major fan of Microsoft these days; yes, I even find it hysterical they've been hacked on this scale; yes, admittedly (regrettably?), I have sympathy for them. No matter how much I dislike the ethics (or lack thereof) of Bill Gates, he has been wronged: theft is theft (if indeed source code was stolen, which has yet to be proven, by the way). Of course, I'm wondering something of my own (away from all the flying conspiracy theories, rest assured). According to MSNBC, Microsoft has figured out that the passwords were being sent to an account somewhere in Russia. So what's taking so long? What's taking Microsoft so long to actually come up with something definitive? Enough "may have" and "could have" -- where is the "did" and "done"?
... They have 3 or 4 service packs for Visual Studio 6. Two service packs for SQL Server 7. Even their beloved Windows 2000 (not a few months after being released) now has its own Service Pack 1. I could keep going, but I'd be typing forever. No, nothing will be truly bug free upon release. Yes, bugs will always be one of the inherent problems behind code. But consider the overall amount of time between finding a bug and releasing a fix for it. Linux does it better and faster; Microsoft tries to mimic that behaviour and often times fails. Microsoft cannot keep up with the drive of Linux, and that's in out favour. If Microsoft source code ever became a part of Linux, I'd probably scream "Borg!" and run off to my own little planet somewhere in Andromeda. Assimilation of the illegal or the unwilling needs to be where the line is drawn.
Now, here's another thought. If the Linux community were behind this, we'd be unimaginable idiots every last one of us. Linux is so much more than Windows could ever hope to be. If you look at the track record of Microsoft and bugs, it don't look pretty. They have 7 service packs for Windows NT 4 (1,2,3,4,5,6,6a)
Though, I wouldn't mind someone stealing the source code for DirectX 7.0 and developing it over to Linux. *drool* I'd love to play Final Fantasy VIII under Linux. (And, for my legal sake, that is not a serious statement, though it would be a dream to play games of that magnitude under Linux. Of course I could just hope that Linux and Sony somehow combine forces and make a new distribution called Sony Linux or something...)
This breakin at Microsoft also says something for off-site workers. As a consultant, at times I do work off-site, and I see some interesting effects in the worst case. Since the intruders appeared to the security logs as employees simply working off-site, security overlooked them for three months. For three months the intruders worked, doing only God knows what. (Like I said, there's been no real definitive proof to surface yet except for allegations about what "might have" and "could have" and "appears to have happened"...) But I still think this might produce some chilling and overly restrictive corporate policy changes on working off-site.
I'm betting that nothing really serious did happen; I'd bet that the intruders only want to sit down and see how long it would be before someone noticed. In three months, you could cause all sorts of chaos for Goliath in his own camp. Blow out a few torches, bring down the mainframes, format a few servers, knock out corporate E-Mail, shut down all the domain controllers. (That latter one would be VERY interesting, believe me.) Maybe I'm wrong; maybe something serious did happen (not that a break in of this size isn't already something serious in and of itself)... I just want proof before I start my panic run. (Which, for me, consists of about 2 minutes of hyperventilating. *grin*)
Enough rambling...
Seth Anderson BTW, I'm not 23 anymore -- I am TexasCowboy26 now. =)
If stolen MS code DOES get widely distributed, it would be pretty amusing for the OSS community to start anonymously sending them diff's to fix up the bugs in the stolen code. I'd like to see the face of the tech support droid who gets that email...
- Isaac =)
Compaq was very worried about this when they cloned the IBM PC. They had one group pf hackers chip away at an IBM PC to build the specs for what it needed to do, and a separate "Clean Room" team to use the specs and create the cloned BIOS. The "Clean room" designers had to be able to prove they had never worked with an IBM PC to get the job.
And thus the IMB clone of the PC architecture was born.
If they hadn't taken these precautions they would have been sued into oblivion by IBM and all PCs would be IBM PCs to this very day.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
You really need to review your history your ingnorant "pig-dog". Genreal La Fiate was leaching off the US purse while "Fighting the British" Wait, I know, what about the "French-Indian war"?? WW2; the south conspiring with Hitler, Can you tell me what that was all about? Why do we pay for 75% of the French Defence? Why do you all smell? Had you discovered deorderant yet? I hate stupid people....
Yes, they've basically stolen tons of stuff from everyone else... one MIGHT be tempted to say "fight fire with fire"... BUT...
Here's the chance to publicly say "even if it was offered to us, we wouldn't take it." That kind of corporate-espionage B.S. belongs to a totally different world. Open Source is a philosophy, let it live and or die on its own two feet and by its merits.
Showing the world the kind of class that Microsoft never had and never will should ratchet the public image of slashdot types way up, and counteract those stupid and offensive "hi! I'm the fat black hacker guy who has your credit card!" commercials...
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
...they could probably call for a "closed-court" case, where nobody who was in the room would be able to speak of what they saw for like 25 years (or something of the sort(since it IS a trade secret). I, of course, am no lawyer, however.
-raph
They need not have orchestrated the theft, nor hired the thieves, simply relied on their own "security". Much less "conspiracy" is required than some theorists have suggested.
What would you do with Billions of dollars in cash assets, a floundering business model, and a bevy of lawyers depressed at loosing to Janet Reno every step of the way? Get ready for sue-a-thon!(tm)
Thats probably enough time to design and implement a pretty well hidden bit of malicious code that would soon be on most of the computers around the world!
If they were smart, they could sneak a little bit of trickery into IIS, or some other MS service.
This, my friends, is the real danger, I'm sure that the source code wouldn't do too many people good, but the possiblity of writing your own personal backdoor into Windows is pretty Frickin huge.
I seem to remember that there was a rumor that the NSA had backdoors planted in Microsoft code. Could be just conspiracy theorists paranoia.. Guess we'll find out.
IANAL, But if you get the source code from someone else (as opposed to stealing it yourself), I don't think that trade secret protection applies. Now you have probably violated Microsoft's copyrights, but that doesn't prevent you from writing open-source software. I believe that law is that if a trade secret is stolen or misappropriated, the person who steals it or discloses it improperly is liable for damages, but anyone he gives it to is in the clear as it is no longer a secret. Legally I don't think that copying a win98 CD is any different than copying win98 source code.
[...] W32.HLLW.Qaz.A was first discovered in China in July of 2000. W32.HLLW.Qaz.A is a companion virus that can spread over the network and also has a backdoor that lets a remote hacker connect to and control the computer via port 7597. Since the virus does not have the ability to spread to computers outside the network, the virus might have originally been spammed out by email.
should contact M$ sharks and get signed affidavits from M$ suits and programers swearing that no GPLed source code was used in any Windows product. Afterall the source for GPL programs has always been available. Time to go on the offensive.
"Open code, in other words, can be a check on state power." -Lawrence Lessig
The reports of the Microsoft incident mentioned the Qaz Trojan, which according to this article opens port 7597 to support remote control. Which, needless to say, would easily be stopped by a firewall/packet filter/proxy/etc.
While you're correct that the most determined attackers might be able to create a trojan which might even be able to operate through a protocol-sensitive filter or proxy, the fact is that no-one seems to have actually developed such a trojan, have they? Which means that for most businesses with a decently configured firewall, you're far more likely to have a disgruntled techie or salesperson abscond with or sabotage sensitive information than you are to experience an external attack from the Internet.
---------please read----------
ive just spent the last 10 mins reading up on this whole conspiricy, and microsoft wanted their source code to become public, and death to the open source community via legals.
use your fucking heads.
the microsoft operating system, and office suite, appeals to the less computer literate users, which seems to be the majority of the market--how many first time users would go out and buy a system running FreeBSD or slackware7.1. the kind of things these users take into account are the ease of use, internet functionality and compatibility, possibly gameplay, and security.
security, especially due to the media. im sure wed all agree the media portrays images way off to the public. as a man with a computer related occupation, you can only imagine how many calls ive got from friends telling me theyve been hacked--when somebody stumbled across netbus at some l33t hax0r website or bbs. so security will have a major impact on the consumers decision when choosing an operating system.
SO, why on EARTH would microsoft 'hack' into their own systems, or hire somebody to do so. thats ridiculous. they arent worried enough about open source software to scar their reputation as much as that. i quote a man, whos name i shall not reveal, in microsoft senior management, "we aren't worried about linux. linux is a fad, itll die out. we are, on the other hand, worried about sun/solaris. their o/s is much more expensive than ours.".
for you paranoid oss'ers out there, if ms wanted their code to become public, so they could destroy open source software, why not just RELEASE their damn source code? that wouldn't harm them security wise, and they could still sue the assess off you little private developers, and even the larger developers would become extinct. and microsoft releasing their code would get you stubborn unix users to see them in a new light.
im not going to lie, i'm an ms employee, and a regular slashdot reader. lost of ms employees are. maybe rob/co should check their logs for *.microsoft.com requests. im running 2 boxes at home, one, the one with more powerful hardware, running win2k, the other running slackware 7.1. linux fascinates me, and id much rather use it than windows, likely because of the anti-ms hate in the air. and i'm an ms employee.
Yeah, I'm usually wary of clicking links from AC's without looking in the status bar to see what the actual URL is. I notice that my karma went up a point as well after that... Taco is a sick dude if slash has something that says
if (URL == goatse.cx) {
++user.karma
}
But I guess I wouldn't put it past him.
Or lets say that it was posted to ummm... slashdot.org by an AC.
I suppose most people involved in open source read slashdot now and again...
Is this article saying in its first sentence that any people that have worked on any proprietary software cannot work on free software? I mean, who hasn't? Or is this "illegally copied" part somehow relevant?
That's already happened once, and I for one would beg Rob and crew to seriously considerjust deleting any posts outright if it happens again (this is assuming there actually is MS code inthe wild of course...)
Fist Prost
"We're talking about a planet of helpdesks."
Fist Prost
"We're talking about a planet of helpdesks."
-Jaron Lanier
Gov't used to plant narcotics or weapons onto people - now all they need is a printout of some win32UselessFunc.c!
Who said anything about an open port?
I'm sorry, but to a determined hacker, no firewall in the world will be able to stop a properly-written trojan.
First, you're assuming that the trojan simply opened a telnet port and waited for connections (al-la backorifice) - a firewall (or more correctly packet filter) would solve this, but there are LOTS of other ways a trojan could have operated.
Let's look at some of the other ways to get in from the outside (Just off the top of my head):
The bottom line is that packet filters aren't the final solution to security - they are certainly a part of any good security plan, but relying solely on them won't protect you from someone who really wants into your network.
-------------------------------------------
... I was under the understanding that they didn't tamper with anything, just copied it. I don't think they edited MS source code at all, just "stole" it per se, and sent it off to Russia or wherever it was...
The concept of property is fundamental to any society, and I don't agree with the 'property is theft' idea, but when they can unfairly use this to their advantage, they should ,and are, slapped down. When companies use their power to reduce freedom of choice, that is something to be resisted, for it is negative competition. Freedom of choice seems to me to be what the free software movement is all about.
In many ways, modern multinationals are excellent institutions.They are highly transparent,for example, especially when compared to the government buerocracies that the WTO protestors and the like adore so. The fact is that these companies are owned by Mr&Mrs Average, and the shareholders put an incredible amount of pressure on them to perform and demand information on their performance & intentions. They are the ones controlling the multinationals.
Anyway, getting a bit OT&OTT there, so to get back on-topic, I'll say that ultimately, Microsoft is free to do whatever the hell it wants with it's property and information, as long as it does not try and reduce my or anybody elses freedom to choose, whether it be software or my privacy.
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
There is no
Actually, look at this: www.microsoft.com/technet/security/001027.asp . In it, M$ denies that there was any source stolen and that basically anything happened at all. ;P
-raph
So we can all burn our excess CPU cycles searching for GPL'ed code in Windows now?
You guys make like this is some evil dark thing that someone other than MS has the source to windows.
it is *NOT* a big deal
You can go lic the windows source code for yourself, maybe not whistler but its not a big deal.. AT ALL.
WIndows source code is available for a price, and windows source code *IS* out there, and if you want to see the source code for a MS platform go grab the source to windows CE, it comes with the MSDN developer network subscription.
So.. in short you guys get over it, all these same jokes and asanine things floating around are irksome.
Jeremy
Should someone investigate whether anybody employed by Microsoft has read GPL'ed code? Could that bring all of MS source under the GPL? Am I just talking nonsense?
I suspect that it would be very very difficult to make a case either way, but one side has more money to throw at lawyers than others.
Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
Of course the user should notice an interruption of the regular use of the port.
I guess the trick would be to have the trojan play nicely with the porggies that are meant to be using the port?
Doesn't sound TOO hard...
'There is a Light that never goes out.'
So now there's a perfect chance someone trims those sources of excessive baggage and releases an optimized uncrippled version of WinME on 1 floppy disk.
i.e.
Legally speaking I never seen the code, so is this legit ?
Obama 2012: our incompetent asshole is slightly less of an incompetent asshole than the other incompetent asshole !
Yes, but unless I'm mistaken, the BSD copyright requires acknowledgement. And to my knowledge, they have not done so. I personally don't really care which license you 'prefer', and indeed Microsoft is completely permitted to use any or all of the code that's under the BSD-style licenses, however credit should be given if for no other reason than the morality of using someone else's code and claiming it's entirely yours. Either way, I don't see UC going after Microsoft for such a trivial matter, and the version of FTP that they used is quite ancient and could've probably have been reimplemented from scratch quite easily given it's limited feature set.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
Aww, are you jealous you didn't make it to VA's party in San Jose? Poor you!
--
Email from within M$ asked questions like, "How will this kill Unix?" Way back in 1995 or so. They really are out to get everyone else and force their crappy code on everyone.
For the paranoid among us:
There was no breakin. Microsoft just claims there was so they can sue open source projects that incidentally/through legal reverse engineering have come up with code similar to theirs.
This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html
What about the (admittedly paranoid) consideration that this crack is a fake. What if you were Microsoft and wanted to have grounds to challenge the rights of distribution of open-source products that can be substituted for your products? Releasing your own code (in a way that makes you appear to be a victim) into the wild would provide the grounds to establish such challenges. Samba, Wine, Koffice, Open Office, and many others could be accused of using Microsoft proprietary methods to achieve their stated goals.
I know it sounds like a plot dreamed up by Chris Carter but you must admit that it's an interesting possibility. After all, Microsoft initially decided to investigate the breakin themselves. Maybe they needed to establish a more realistic appearance of a crack. And It's difficult for me to believe that a company whose products are so easily back-doored would have anything but the latest virus detection and prevention measures in place or that they would leave any sensitive materials on a network that wasn't very carefully administered by their absolute best IT personell.
Then again, I'm a little tired and the upcoming election has me on edge so...
Does this mean that programmers that had previously worked on Microsoft's OSs are permanently banned from free development? Both current and old versions?! -Corey
I think we are all overlooking one extrodinarily important factoid, All open source software is open source. That is, the code, and change logs, and CVS logs, etc... are completely and totally open to the public. M$ or thier lawyers would have an extremely hard time claiming that MS interop was a result of the hack if it wasn't, as judges could see a clear progression of the source code. Just think, MS says that the samba team hacked thier servers, stole the source, and is using it. Well, just look @ the samba logs and see that they were doing this well in advance of the hack. Hooray for open source.
Also, Microsoft is one of the few true symbols of "Big evil company" out there, can you imagine the kind of PR they'll get when the local news starts reporting that MS is "Going after a free alternative OS" Unless MS owns news anchors, (well, more than one networks worth,) the news couldn't possible substantiate the spin we are all paraniod of.
Now, the only real question left is, if someone has the source to say, windows, what good is it going to do them? THe only real motive I can think of is. Post it on the net anonymously.
If this happens, then MS is fucked, as trade secrets aren't trade secrets once thier known.
Well, we can all cross our fingers (and penguin's can cross thier fingers)
Thats enough rambling,
--Alex the Gnome Fish
Just Say NO to Microsoft source!
Than entire article reminded me of a anti-drug/dare progranda. It will infect your mind!
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
.... the net.
When their source will be in the hands of the-not-so-funny-evil-hackers, the attacks on windows-servers will increase with successfull results. Anyone knows that security by obscurity (binairies aren't easy in finding holes) isn't what your security model should be based on.
By allowing nice-hackers access to the source, the first easy attacks will be save.
Be prepared for installing service pack 6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16..... and so.
I told you so....
vinylat33
Could this be karma(sic). I mean, perhaps the source was stolen because some kind of deity with a sense of humor wanted to get them back for all the stealing they've done?
====
Crudely Drawn Games
While agree using another firm's code that was obtained illegally is wrong, it sorta pisses me off, this situation. You all damn know MS has taken code from open source projects, all fine since they keep their source closed. Yet since we are doing the right thing and keeping our code open, we have to nearly *expect* MS legal to go on a witch hunt. I tell you what, I don't think 2 wrongs make a right but I have a sweaty lusty desire for this source getting released into public domain. Once it's been there long enoug, it'll slowly creep into open projects and y'all know it.
Regards
that you MUST keep the secret, right? So when Microsoft carelessly allowed spies to copy their secrets, they lost the trade secret protection, didn't they? The spies have broken the law, and should be punished, but if they publish the "secrets", it's none of my doing that that's not a secret any more. There may be a copyright to keep me from cutting and pasting, but other than that, it seems that I should be in the clear.
In a nutshell,(TM) I thought that once a trade secret slipped out, it was no longer protected by law. Can someone who IS a lawyer comment on this? Is it true that it doesn't matter HOW a trade secret is divulged?
See what I've been reading.