Slashdot Mirror
Windows 2000 & Windows NT 4 Source Code Leaks
PeterHammer writes "Neowin.net is reporting that Windows 2000 and Windows NT source code has been leaked to the internet. More on this as we hear it."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
A quick peek around indeed shows something named Windows.Source.Code.w2k.nt4.wxp.tar circulating, but this had to happen sooner or later, considering the number of institutions with access to the source. Wonder how long it'll take before a torrent of new worms using newly discovered security holes tear up the net.
I for one would love to peek around in this, more out of curiosity than any desire to actually do something useful with it.
The next great MMORPG.
Now will everyone stop bitching about Windows not being open source?!
Later isn't going to work, since the server was down even before it hit the Slashdot front page. I empathize with their server.
I did, however, managed to grab the news blurb (but not the, at that point, 214 comments) from the intermittent front page:
Torrent, anyone?
I had but a simple dream, to destroy all humans.
Are people deeply involved with OSS going to start fixing bugs in Win 2k? Might be fun and a dagger in MS's heart.
"We fix bugs in 24 to 40 hours, much faster than OSS."
There's plenty of worthless spam on the internet already.
I've been upgraded to "bad"!
Full file listing with sizes: http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~mortehu/files.txt I suggest mirroring ;)
Tim Dorr
Owner/Manger
A Small Orange
GLL - General Leaked-Souce license
Microsoft just needed a push in the right direction, right?
-S
We Apprentice Developers and Designers
Seriously, the previous article lambasting open source for being vulnerable is nothing when compared to eyes backed with malicious intent poring over Windows source code for new exploits. So much for security through ignorance.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I want a ebuild!
emerge win2000
The funny thing is the fortune that appeared in the appropriate slashbox when I first saw this article.
;-)
"Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for.
-- Unknown source"
Mirror with comments.
Hope it's all just a bluff.
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
...Windows 2000 and Windows NT source code has been leaked to the internet.
The Internet, however, being a polite sort of fellow and completely undesirous of the undoubtedly horrible ramifications of having such a beastie running around loose, gently replaced the source code and gave Windows a friendly pat on the head.
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
Do NOT read that code if you ever wish to program for an open source OS, ever. Doing so will make you tainted- you open the project up to allegations of copyright infringement. Unless you never want to contribute a single line to Linux, *BSD, etc, checking out that code is a bad idea. Its almost a surprise MS didn't "leak" Win 95 or 3.1 years ago to catch open source developers like this.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
It *amazes* me that it hasn't been routine.
Windows source code is not some deep dark secret that is locked in a vault, only let out during builds for the product releases.
*MANY* people have access to the Windows source code. A number of people in my own university have it. There are strict licensing considerations, but when has that ever worked before? Surprisingly, none of the people with source access has ever pulled off the stunt where it's broadcasted. I have always wondered why.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
We all know the real valuable stuff is in error.h.
So, what does it say?
This pretty much destroy's any argument that Windows is more secure because "the bad guys" can't look at the source code. And yet it won't get the positive aspect of "the good guys" reviewing the source code for bugs as it is illegal to make a copy of the code without a license to do so.
This is not good. Windows is designed primarily with 'security by obscurity' in mind. The security holes indeed show up every often and we have worms making it to the gazillion windows boxes before the patch does. Get ready for a deluge of worms/virri. Another bad week/month for sysadmins.
Free XBox, PS2
While you may not have heard of Neowin before, they are actually quite well known and are often placed in those '100 essential sites' lists.
They focus primarily on windows tech, and have a knack for breaking stories about Windows- leaked builds of future versions, beta builds of service packs, etc. Whoever runs the site is well connected in Microsoft.
-Ryan
AUWYHSTOT (Acronyms are Useless When You Have to Spell Them Out Too)
http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~mortehu/files.txt I'll wait till i can download it into a lab
I haven't been able to even get to Neowin, it's been slashdotted since before this story even made it to "The Mysterious Future" here on /., but think about what this means if this is actually true. The potential vulnerabilities. All the trade secrets Microsoft put in there. Hell, IE 5 was released with Windows 2000, so if this is full source, it means IE 5 and the trident engine are in there as well.
If this is true, today may be the day that everything changes.
ReactOS have announced they have hit all upcoming milestones and consider their project "feature complete".
I wonder how long it will be until someone runs the comparator in it?
Sure it's illegal, but so have many things Microsoft has done.
I'm not sure that kind of justification really works. It also doesn't help the open source community, IMHO. I can't agree with the "let's sink to their level" philosophy.
I found the source code here.
Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
Ok so here's MS's plan.
... Ya, I'm sure you know what goes here.
Step 1) Leak their source
Step 2) Sue Onen Source developers down the road because obviously they have studied the MS leaked source.
Step 3)
Ok but seriously, I'm not touching it. The last thing I need is Microsoft saying that I somehow owe something to them.
Jerks.
--
Mike
-- Mike wildcard@illuminatus.org
Where law ends, tyranny begins -- William Pitt
What would be the legal ramifications of:
1) Someone taking the W2K source and making an Out of the Country host of a tweaked (and improved?) W2K source? Would this be illegal to use? I realize it would be illegal to distribute in the US, but would it be illegal to *use*. Especially if you owned a valid copy of W2K?
2) If you own a valid copy of W2K, could you legally look at/use the leaked W2K source?
3) If there were any derivative works off the W2K source, I'd think the W2K license would allow you to use any subsequent O/S created with that source by independent developers. I realize the EULA may forbid this, but I seriously doubt that would hold up in court. You probably couldn't do this from a commercial standpoint, but as a private citizen, I can't see there being any legal recourse MS could take against using what would effectively be an OSS version of W2K.
Anyway, something to think about.
What ever you do, don't let the code influence your projects
You beat me to the punch. This code leak could be a very good thing for Microsoft, and a trap for the open source community. I doubt that Microsoft intentionally planted this snare but if any future open source project even vaguely resembles this leaked code I have no doubt that Microsoft will open their full arsenal of lawyers.
Breaking News:
A member of the Slashdot cult has admitted he has stolen the source code to Microsoft's Windows XP operating system. PickyH3D is the handle the low-karma hacker used when bragging of his accomplishment to the world. He has also issued a challenge to Microsoft's legal team with the statement that "there is no evidence". More on this as we hear it.
In the last article on the /. home page, we have W. Russell Jones talking about all the insecurity of having source available in open source projects.
I'm afraid we've reach a massive failure here in security by obscurity, but time will tell. If this is true and if there are lots of security holes discovered, I find it hard to believe even a company of Microsoft's size can respond quickly enough to keep the outbreaks down. This threat is why open source is better than what W. Russell Jones made it out to be. The threat of security failing because of leaking source just isn't there with open source.
-N
I've nothing to say here...
Exactly
In fact if you are involved with an Open Source project (especially Kernel and Window Manager projects) I suggest you do everything possible to avoid seeing this code.
Accusations of Taint are undoubtedly going to spring up from this, and you would be better to be well clear.
I will confess to a certain curiosity as to what the results of a comparator test would be though.
An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of
What the NT kernel does is well understood. The object code is widely available, and key parts, like file system formats, have been reverse engineered. There's plenty of documentation. A few major development shops have access to the source anyway. If you're into kernel architecture, it might be interesting, but otherwise, so what?
Yeah... I can see it now.
"Microsoft is suing end-users of Linux due to the discovery that the latest version of the kernel incorporated Windows 2000 code. The discovery of the code theft was made after someone at Microsoft plugged a USB scanner into a system running the latest Linux kernel and received the Blue Screen of Death."
"God is dead!" - Nietzsche
"Nietzsche is dead!" - God
So will we finally find out exactly what kind of information that IE is keeping on us?
It's only reasonable that software with so many holes will leak!
^_^
Microsoft gave a talk at usenix: Windows A Software Engineering Odyssey
This slide indicates the full source is 50gb and took a week to setup and 2 hours a day to update.
That implies to me that people could have the whole source but it would huge.
Slide 24 talks about their new perforce based system that only takes 3 hours to setup and 5 minutes to update.
Microsoft has always maintained that it takes a good 24 hours to compile a full version of Windows from the source, and that the increasing complexity of Windows has meant that modern computers don't compile modern windows any faster....
I'd be interested to know what the Windows source is compiled with though
Intel C compiler? I'm sure they couldn't stand the irony of using GCC. The NT codebase is supposed to be crossplatform do I doubt it's got any Assembler code in it - is it written in C or one of Microsofts own languages?
If so, what was it originally written in and when was the translation made? (Pls don't mod me informative - I may be way off the mark!)
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
> It *amazes* me that it hasn't been routine.
Because most people are paranoid enough to assume M$ watermarks each distributed copy to allow them to trace it back to the point of release. But now they are giving copies to governments like China and folks there just don't really give a damn about western notions of copyrights.
Democrat delenda est
On the plus side, some of the comments are fairly humorous, especially when you note who wrote them and look up where they are today.
The Windows code hasn't had nearly as much peer review as open source OS's so I won't be suprised if this leads to a ton of exploits. The big problem here is that this source will be available to any black-hat that wants it--they obviously aren't going to be concerned about the legalities of obtaining leaked source code. But the businesses that use Windows aren't going to be able to audit the code for security leaks unless they obtain it illegally (or sign some agreements with Microsoft and shell out bundles of cash.)
For the same reasons that Microsoft warned its IE developers to stay clear of Mozilla, open source coders should avoid even seeing this.
That said, I'd love to get hold of the dll code that does the equivalent of a window manager in X. How cool would it be to swap out a dll on the Windows box at work and have a completely custom windowing environment?
The odds of getting one's hands on the full source to NT4/2K are slim to none--even most Microsoft folks couldn't do that.
This is incorrect.
Its funny how people build up ideas in their heads about what its like in a large corporation, somehow like a hollywood movie with lots of people with dark shades and guns ala "The Net".
No, inside Microsoft is a lot more like "Office Space" and anybody with motivation could get the entire source with little trouble.
Are there any back doors showing in the source...
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Just imagine the FUD/lawsuits/etc when, for some reason, Linux starts running on natively on NTFS.
Besides, there are several obfuscating methods designed to hide the logic of the original code. They can be used to actually copy the code to the emulator (if the copied piece will work there). After that it would be hard to prove anything even in the open source.
Disclaimer: IANAL, but anyway, personally I would not feel guilty having W2K source code and using it to improve WINE. Because I think that the algorithms is a part of the math, which existed always even before humans came here. A programmer just discovers the piece of math and express it using one or another language. The gravity doesn't belong to Newton, the math formula that describes the gravity neither. Only the fact of discovery of gravity math description belongs to Newton, just for references. Only the fact that programmer wrote the code belongs to the programmer (or the employer), not the code itself. Just to refer in the report to the boss why one was so busy all the day. Getting the source code from Microsoft is not stealing - it's learning. There is nothing wrong in learning.
Less is more !
100 GOSUB 7000 ; * Load stuff
110 GOSUB 900 ; * Show windows logo
120 GOSUB 20000 ; * Prompt for operator login
130 GOSUB 32000 ; * Fill half of memory with DLL's
140 GOSUB 16000 ; * Time waster loop
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Imagine if somewhere hidden in the bowels of the Windows2000 source an intrepid SCO intern finds a sliver of SCO-owned Unix code. Then all hell would break loose...
As someone mentioned, this would be fascinating to just read the comments. Would it be possible for someone to strip out all the code, leaving only the comments for each file, minus comment lines that ARE code? It would be GREAT just to read the "intention" and "questions" living in that code and be able to associate each with a filename. Purely for entertainment value. It would also be neat to compare comment-to-code ratio in areas of MS code.
Ryan Fenton
*** CONSPIRACY THEORY BEGIN ***
I remember someone on here, a while back during one of the SCO stories, wondered what would happen if Microsoft released the source code, but under such a devious license that contamination would be fatal to an open-source project.
Maybe someone at Microsoft thought that was a neat idea.
*** CONSPIRACY THEORY END ***
As far as looking at the code: the only real reason to examine it is to find new exploits. No developer is going to slave over that source in order to find bugs and repair them, since there is no legal way to do it.
...
I hope you weren't planning on ever contributing to any Open Source projects after doing that. If it's later demonstrated that you had access to the W2K source and contributed vaguely similar code (even by accident) to a project, it could have severe repercussions for that project.
... the textbook author would own all of your code.
... trivial code will generally be similiar regardless) the more difficult that is.
IANAL but I do read Groklaw, and from what I understand copyright restricts the act of copying (duplicating). You can study someone's implimentation of something as much as you like, then go impliment something similiar yourself. As long as you do not copy the code verbatim you are not in violation of copyright law.
Otherwise, no student would be able to code having once looked at examples in a text book
The problem is, of course, proving one implimented the code oneself and did not in fact crib the whole thing from someone elses code, and the greater the similiarity (for code of sufficient complexity
In any event, it is a myth that, simply by looking at, or even studying, one set of code one is somehow "tainted" and unable to contribute to another, competing project, be it free or proprietary. To violate copyright law one must copy, not just receive inspiration from.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
My question is, has anybody managed to get this steaming pile of manure to compile? Seems like one would need to do that and then compare the binaries (ignoring any timestamping) before assuming this is authentic.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
The server is currently slashdotted, but I managed to download the first few lines of the Windows 2000 codebase. Here they are:
I was expecting the General Protection Fault License.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
The Win2K Source was released a while ago.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
If you work on any Open Source project, DO NOT LOOK!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
You must either be new to Gentoo or new to Windows. It would most definately be:
ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~x86" emerge win2000
Having the source you could do a cleanroom implementation of it, have a set of "dirty" developers read and describe the undocumented API's and another set write those API's from scratch
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
I seem to remember reading that Microsoft gave China access to the entire source code, after the country mentioned that it was leaning more towards using Linux for government-related things, because the entire source code was open for inspection.
$ echo "ceci n'est pas une pipe" | sed -Ee 's/(eci n|pas )//g'
In my best Bruce Campbell voice "Stop, it's a trick. Get an axe!" Hail to the king baby!
As long as you do not copy the code verbatim you are not in violation of copyright law.
Copying of nonliteral elements is actionable infringement. That's why many reverse engineering firms have two separate teams: one to describe a piece of copyrighted code and another to implement it.
In any event, it is a myth that, simply by looking at, or even studying, one set of code one is somehow "tainted" and unable to contribute to another, competing project, be it free or proprietary. To violate copyright law one must copy, not just receive inspiration from.
Try telling that to the estate of George Harrison, who lost in Bright Tunes v. Harrisongs. It's possible to copy without knowing you're copying, and it's still infringement.
Agreed, but you forget one thing about size. Source code has very good compression ration. Almost every time ratio is 10:1 or more which would mean 1-5 GB, and considering Fedora dvd image i'm downloading right now 3.7GB, well nothing special about the size.
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
I agree. Remember, at the trial MS argued that opening or showing parts of Windows source code would be a threat to national security. Not long after that, they gave their source code to Russia, China, and many multi-national corporations and other organizations as part of their Shared Source initiative. Now, don't know where the source was leaked from, but 1 + 1 = ?
If in fact, this story is true, MS is riding against the wind here. It is feeling pressure from the Open Source while its security, software, and business models are based on keeping the source secret. If so, how long can they keep up?
WINEHQ: Early today, a developer who wished to remain anonymous contribued an astonishing amount of source code to the WINE project. Some initial testing performed by WINE core developers revealed that WINE's compatibility with Microsoft Windows applications releasted for Windows NT and Windows 2000 had perfect compatibility, even down to some annoying and well-known bugs that have plagued certain Microsoft DLLs distributed with Microsoft's operating systems.
;)
"This will really make it possible for non-Windows users to run more applications than ever using WINE on alternate operating systems like Linux," said one develper we spoke with.
I would be the most poetically ironic event ever if it turns out that it was a MS Win security hole that allowed a hacker to enter a server and steal the code.
Doubly ironic if it was a hole that MS has known about for months and not bothered to patch.
Triply ironic if someone finds said hole, patches it, and ships patched source back to MS.
__ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
What about the opposite:
Is there GPL code there?
Ask an auditing company to
diff NT4 2000 | grep -e yourcode
and get an answer.
I don't think they're playing SCO if they released just a part of it maybe but not the whole thing
Code leaks from Microsoft are not new. Check this article at CIO Update about a code leak a year ago: (emphasis mine)
Microsoft Corp. said it is tracing a key piece of code from its Windows Server 2003 software that was leaked onto the Internet, triggering concerns about piracy problems ahead of the company's scheduled product release later this month. The volume-licensing key in question allows for unlimited installations of Microsoft's Windows Server 2003 server operating system, the next upgrade from Windows NT that is slated for release on April 24.
However, this seems only to be a partial leak, not comparable to this complete (if it's real) source code leak.
Blimey. We got wind of this around lunchtime GMT, and within half an hour two zip files mysteriously got downloaded to - ahem - servers some collegues and I have access to (no, I had no involvement in the download and have no idea of the source). We took a look, us being extremely sceptical of the claims, and ended up spending a few hours grepping the Win2K sources.
If this is a wind up, someone or people spent a long old time faking it. Microsoft notices and email addresses all over the place. They don't like the AIX compiler one little bit. Hardly any mention of Linux, GPL or GNU.
Actually quite a professional bunch of source files by all accounts. Appears to be using standard GNU Makefiles though. Yes, the 'f' word appears, as does the 's' word. Apparently Office 2k is broken in some respect that Win2k needed a tweak or some description.
Plenty of mentions of Internet Explorer, although I wouldn't like to say that we found 'IE' in the code, but then we aren't C experts at all. It does mention IE6 and Windows ME, so can't be all that old either. Does mention buffer overflows a fair bit, also plenty of 'hackhack' and 'bugbug' notes laying around.
In fact, nothing particularly spectacular found at all. We took a look, got bored, and went back to our normal work. Honest boss!
And no, we didn't try to compile it. We felt it was genuine enough though - not that we really cared. We did however note that if this lot is proven to be the real deal, Microsoft are going to be landed with one hell of a lot of security alerts for 2k/NT over the next six months.
Yours merely curious...
whoa, i totally read that as "MOD PARENT UP SUPER FUNNY"
"#43 Posted by psneddon on 13 Feb 2004 - 01:09
Just my opinion / thoughts.
1) The software that builds and compiles Windows is very complex I doubt anyone could turn the source into a working system easily. Maybee it would be possible to compile certain parts. Plus even if you could it would take hours if not days to go through the process.
2) I don't see how this will let anyone find any obvious flaws, microsoft have software that does this all the time. I'm not saying its not a security risk but its not as simple as the journalists make out - as always.
3) This exact same scare happened about 7 years ago, I remember they were selling the source to NT4 at a local market on CD, doubt it was the real source code."
there might be patent issues, but i think they list those one the software or license somewhere. my understanding of trade secrets is that it is their reponsibility to maintain a the secret. and if this is *really* source code for nt4/win2k, it's not a secret anymore.
eric
"There is no available source code! Only a heathen would suggest such a crime. Microsoft has an excellent security track record. Those are features, not bugs! The heathen apple and linux communities are spreading lies, it is all lies."
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
Oh, come on, get real! You miss one very important point in your comment...
The source code to SAMBA is Open Source!
This means that MS have probably got a few copies of Samba themselves already and were there any licensed MS code in it, you can rest assured the Microsoft would have sent their lawyers over long before now.
Just accept that the Samba guys are a pretty neat bunch of programmers that have genuinely backwards engineered Samba from the word go - it's the likeliest and most realistic conclusion to draw.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
There have been articles on the web describing alot of their NT build process. They do use command line builds. They originally wrote a custom version control system, but now use something else (not Visual Source Safe, I think perforce, or perhaps they created anotehr system). I believe, if memory serves, that they had a custom make tool, but they may now use nmake, which is the make tool that's distributed with their commerical dev tools.
I recall the article did mention the use of perl for parts of the custom build scripts.
As a long time windows programmer, frankly, this stuff looks made up. Clever, amusing, but ultimately it seems like a hoax. If this is all the proof we have, then I'm afraid it's a bit pathetic!
Also there appear to be duplicate headers, repeated in various directories that I'm almost positive would end up screwing the compile process in a real build. Also, another thing is that, if their distributed files with VC6/7 are indicative of their internal naming, they stick to a strict 8.3 naming scheme, and make note of this in their documentation (don't remember *where* it was that I read it, but it was MS docs, and I remember being surprised by it). Another thing, again assuming that the files distributed with VC6/7 are a good model, their files tend to be all UPPERCASE! For example, here's a listing from their includes in for VC6:
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 21912 Apr 24 1998 ACCCTRL.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 27863 Apr 24 1998 ACLAPI.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 3735 Apr 24 1998 ACLCLS.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 747 Apr 24 1998 ACLSID.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 269 Apr 24 1998 ACSMGTC.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 267 Apr 24 1998 ACSSVCC.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 833 Apr 24 1998 ACTIVECF.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 1111 Apr 24 1998 ACTIVEDS.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 39805 Apr 24 1998 ACTIVEX.MAK
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 3794 Apr 24 1998 ACTIVEX.RCV
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 2053 Apr 24 1998 ACTIVEX.VER
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 68013 Apr 24 1998 ACTIVSCP.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 17845 Apr 24 1998 ACTIVSCP.IDL
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 3402 Apr 24 1998 ADDRLKUP.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 18946 Apr 24 1998 ADMEX.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 10051 Apr 24 1998 ADMINEXT.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 2827 May 31 1998 ADOID.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 343678 Jun 19 1998 ADOINT.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 135222 Jun 2 1998 ADOMD.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 14127 May 31 1998 ADOMD.IDL
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 5083 Apr 24 1998 ADPTIF.H
-rwx------+ 1 Administ None 1133 Apr 24 1998 ADS.ODL
Don't worry... We're safe. MS can't prove what you're downloading, because no one there can open a tar.bz2!
TAR!? BZ2?! What the hell? That's not ZIP!!!!
A friend and his associate left a previous employer to form a start-up. They began work on a product, much like the one their former employer was developing. Though my friend largely contributed the code and many fixes to his associates code, the project died when the former employer had detectives raid the associates house. The former employer claimed they were copying the firmware, though my friend had mostly written it. However, an old code listing was found in his associates house after they had both vehemently denied copying any code from their former employer. In light of the discovery, the issue of stole-did not steal became a moot point, as they would need a company of lawyers, time and lots of money to defend themselves. If he had tossed all prior employer related junk from his home office, the burden would have been much greater on the former employer. Having some code at home which looked suspiciously like product code (particularly to the untrained eye) killed their start-up and put the associate in jail.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Worse still - if you work on any Open Source project, and you look at Microsoft Source code. . . DO NOT COPY IT!!!
We like Linux as it is. Reliable, stable, and fast. Copying Microsoft code in would jeopardize that. Never mind the IP issues. . .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
This is probably old hat now, but....
Real men don't do backups, they just pack their files into windows_2000_source_code.zip and post them to their website.... with torrent links...
Speaking of "a world of hurt," wouldn't the general reaction to a leak of this kind cause a precipitous fall(big or small) in Microsoft's stock? If was an investor, I would totally short the stock right now, since there will probably be some crazy reaction at just the hint of a leak...probably because people will think it's a bigger deal than it will end up being.
It looks as though at the end of the trading day, MSFT did lose some value. If not short it, then maybe sell it, if only to pick up some deals later...
Hrmph. I opened one of those files and all it said was:
-*- Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced -*-
This leak is a shock not only to Neowin, but to the wider IT industry. The ramifications of this leak are far reaching and devastating. This reporter does not wish to be sensationalist, but the number of industries and critical systems that are based around these technologies that could be damaged by new exploits found in this source code is something that doesn't bare thinking about.
We ask that for the wider benefit of the IT community that members and readers support Microsoft by forwarding anything they know about the leak to the Microsoft's Anti-Piracy department.
Please do not post any links/screenshots/hints or anything to do with the source code outbreak. Discussion is allowed but we will not condone people spreading this source code.
(The rest is just the comments, you know, crap like you get on /.)
But, it only takes one person to look at the Windows source, then go do something vaguely similar in Linux (or any OSS project for that matter). The result would be devastating: Microsoft would litigate Linux to death.
As many have said, the principle behind these copyright suits is awful. Looking at code, then doing something somewhat similar (because of inspiration) should not be a copyright violation. But with Microsoft's legal and financial resources, the laws will "adapt" to what is most beneficial to them.
I can only echo what many other have said: for the sake of Linux and OSS in general, do not look at the Windows source!. That's a very conservative and overly-paranoid policy, but it's a invaluable measure for protection.
To me, general acceptance of open-source software is similar to political elections: every last spec of dirt is drug out and put under the spotlight. Any potential or suspect or even misunderstood characteristic is scrutinized, and the naysayers always manage to put a negative spin on it.
Open source only stands a chance if it can maintain the straight and narrow path... I hate to sound preachy, but any slight mishap, no matter how innocent or accidental, quickly turns into a major catastrophic disaster. There's just too much money and power interested in seeing OSS fail.
If code is made criminal, only criminals will have the code
Now that was a very satisfying cliche re-use. I hope it was an original cliche re-use.
BTW the server seems ve-wy slow to-day. I think we were just Farked.
"Will future ages believe that such stupid bigotry ever existed!" -- Ivanhoe
This is an attempt to corrupt your ability to write reliable code. It is the software equivalent of a Medusa. Once you've looked at it your mind will be agog to make blue screens. Do not look! For the love of Pete, DO NOT LOOK!!!!!
What part of "being proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt" didn't you understand? It's the accuser's task to prove the accused party guilty, not the other way round.
It's 5:15PM. I got home from work 2 hours ago, and had a nap. It is a beautiful day outside, and the Windows source code has been leaked.
And I have 5 Moderator points.
Today -- today, life is good.
I find this one refreshing...
/* You will be assimilated, suckers */
if (app.exename="NETSCAPE.EXE") system.sluggify();
And this one provides for the future...
if (site.url="www.google.com") {
browser.renderer.togglebuggyrenderer();
browser.fakepopup("www.msn.com");
}
I can't say anything about this one though:
if (user.status==PISSED_OFF)
prick.annoyingpopup("Hello, I noticed you are writing a letter")
Seriously, given the denounces of delayed APIs for Navigator, I wouldn't doubt the first one... could someone with the codes please grep for netscape.exe?
17 USC 101 defines a derivative work as:
That really cleared things up, didn't it?
But seriously, my point was that what the parent was stating as an absolute is actually untrue. You can be guilty of copyright infringement even if you dont "copy."
IAAL.
/.! You must be just some miserable karma whore... or then you just made a major typo and forgot the obligatory "N" and ",but".
My god, this is simply not possible - man, this is
Well, I believe the latter must be the case. Be more careful on your next post, OK?
“Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
...I hear the source code to Linux gets leaked every other day!
200 GOSUB 38000 ; * Profit
.... try this password: cia1234 or 1234nsa
...when hackers broke into Microsoft's corporate network. Google is your friend.
I worked at MS on NT, and though it's been a few years, I can definately tell you there are "gnumakefile" files all over the place. It's the first thing any coder notices when they first look at the source, "Hey theres a Makefile, and a gnumakefile, what's the deal?"
If you'd really seen the source, you would have remembered that.
Microsoft is sooooo obviously trying to pull an SCO here.
If you work on any Open Source project, DO NOT LOOK!
Whoops! I looked. And now it's clear why Microsoft bought a license from SCO.
All these headers start with "Copyright, AT&T" and "Copyright, Regents of the University of California". I wonder what that's all about.
(For the more literal-minded Slashdot readers: no I haven't really seen the code. This is a cheap jab at Microsoft, implying their code is derivative of unix and linux code,)
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
Why this is perceived as such a security threat to Microsoft, when it's not for Linux?
100% compatibility with all Windows programs.
"Don't ask us how we did it!!!"
You can see it here: here
;-) :-D
I didn't point you to it
Funny how different two companies feel about source code. Apple has somewhat embraced the open source model, contributing to KHTML, and using many other open source projects. While Microsoft has shunned them all.
Sorry, no typo. I'm really bad at detecting sarcasm but I think I got your meaning.
He's correct. The tree is forked as needed for future versions. Heck, you can search through the asm files and still find ones with David Cutler's name in them that haven't been changed since he wrote them.
This space for rent.
This is extremely good advice. I would go even further and say that if you would ever like to work on an open source project, don't look. The presence on a project of a person who had seen the Windows source could put the entire project at risk.
For a very practical example, consider Samba. If a person who had seen the Windows source were to contribute to Samba and it were later to come to light that the contributor had seen the Windows source, in the name of safety every piece of code that person contributed would have to be ripped out and replaced. Worse, to guarantee that there was no trace of taint, it would probably have to be replaced by people who had not only never been exposed to the Windows source, but who had also not seen the contributor's tainted code. In short, it would require the recruitment of people who had never worked on the project before, or even read the source. Finding those people would not be easy, to say nothing of the time and credibility that would be lost.
For that matter, even if you have legally seen the Windows source because Microsoft has provided it to your employer under their shared source program, the same taint would follow you. If your employer has access to Windows source and your job does not require you to see that source, do yourself a favor: don't look.
If you look at the Windows source, you at the least taint yourself WRT working on any project aimed at interoperability with Windows, and quite possibly on a much wider variety of projects than that.
In short, JUST SAY NO.
http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/info/xpsrctree.s html
full source tree is free, and generatable from the debug/dlls etc....
enjoy.
yes this is 100% legal
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
The listing appears valid, but is only a subset.
I lived for years with full source access at a MS partner company.
Example of what's missing is the file systems (only the file system recognizers seem to be there, not the file system), the entire device driver tree, storage drivers, etc. Most of the core kernel functionality is there though, if pre-service pack levels.
"The rumor regarding the availability of Windows source code is based on the speculation of an individual who saw a small section of un-identified code and thought it looked like Windows code. Microsoft is looking into this as a matter of due diligence," a company spokesman said. "If a small section of Windows source code were to be available, it would be a matter of intellectual property rights rather than security." - from Eweek.
Also see ZDNet, InternetNews and Google News
When I go out in the sun, I wear sunscreen and although I'm fairly pale, I probably won't get burned too badly. If someone goes outside with a T-shirt and shorts for the first time in their life (say a 25-year old), they'll probably get burned fairly badly (unless they wear a lot of sunscreen or aren't out for long).
Linux and other open source OS have had people looking at them for a long time. The people looking at the source of Linux are less likely to be a monoculture than the people at MS who are hired to look over software. In addition (uninformed speculation) more of the Linux people may have been black hats once - the less ordered (as in cubicle order rather than procedure order) system may be more amenable to some who fit a less monolithic background. Linux is thus likely to have been looked at by people who might once have looked to hack it and by people with a wider variety of skill sets. MS knows a lot about software, but their diversity in software knowledge and opinion is likely smaller than that of either their user set or of that of white hat hackers.
The other factor is that having the MS source without a licence is illegal - thus the people who are most likely to take advantage of the availability of the source are people without much respect for the license in the first place - black hats. Linux source can be viewed legally, and so is just as likely to be looked over by white hats as black hats (probably more likely, because of the population ratio of BH and WH).
In one of the Clancy books (I think "Debt of Honor"), he talked about secrecy being good for hiding information that someone doesn't want you to know - but that when it broke, the news would be much worse for that someone, and harder to control. That seems applicable here - only the news is directed almost exclusively to those who would do them harm.
Topic of #windows: http://www.windorks.com | We don't care about "the leak," don't ask us about "the leak," and we will not give you voice.
Topic of #phrack: "wake me when they find the code that lets the FBI in"
http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3 312451
r ol eak_1.html
. as p
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5158496.html
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/02/12/HNmic
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1526390,00
My guess, this is some of the source released to academic institutions for study. Lots of universities have access to a small portion of the windows source code, for use in various computer labs, and to create interoperable code. It comes on a single CD, and is not difficult to obtain.
.eml files be links to the original file? .eml files, like tcp-ip tutorial.eml. Would there really need to be a tutorial like this spread everywhere?
/. doing the trolling, this will probably hit the major news outlets tomorrow. No doubt, they will only quote the most pandering media whores around, to sensationalise the story. Any bets several major stories will point to /. as a culprit, or as a den of criminal hackers?
/.
I've studied one small section of M$'s source code, a single network module appearing in both NT4 and NT5.0, under NDA of course. I don't see it here. There are a lot of things I don't see here, and I'm still going through the tree. There are some things here that are clearly part of windoze, such as the source to regedit.
Some other things that make me suspicious this isn't all the source code:
1) lots of 0 length files, could all those
2) the win2k source just happens to total 658MBytes, about the size of a CD
3) there are a number of 0 length files of people's names with the letters CV next to them. cv - vered mazafi.eml, ronen-cv.eml
4) all through the file listing are repeats of
I think this is just a student prank, being trolled out of proportion. It's not just
the AC
I can't believe I'm admitting to extensive knowlege of windoze on
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
1. Get the OS to compile and boot.
2. Reproduce windows bugs.
3. Fix bugs faster the MS does.
[...]
6. Profit!
Yankee Group senior analyst (sic) Laura Didio has these alarming thoughts on internetnews.com about who might now be able to get their hands on the Windows source:
So Microsoft is the defender of truth and justice in the free world, and OSS hackers are like suicide car bombers?
She then went on to warn of the dangers of hackers using the several hundred megabytes worth of leaked source code to compile their own pirated copies of Windows 2000. What a dumbass.
And what exactly is a "tinker", anyway?
by a 500LB gorilla.
It has nothing to do with morals. It's self preservation.
Most companies don't have the resources to kick the crap out of warez distributors. MS isn't one of those companies.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
I think you people are going a little overboard. Windows source code isn't like a virus or something.
Wait a minute....
If that happens then the person who put the code into the project should be prosecuted. Why would the accusation hurt open source?
Open source is less likely to have that problem in the first place. I mean, the code is open, so the programmer would get caught. Closed source software, on the other hand, is more likely to contain illegal code, because nobody can easily prove it, being closed and all.
Hypocrisy is the 8th deadly sin.
http://www.sschmidt.info/w2k_source.torrent
:-)
I haven't finished downloading this, but it's 200MB in size, has 944 peers!
The tracker is the same one you have listed:
http://alge.nlc.no:6969/announce
The hash is also the same.
If you believe in Open Source or Free Software then you should believe in copyright. If you find a GPL code in use in a closed project, then you should report it to FSF. If you find Windows code in the wild then you should report it to Microsoft. It's their code and consequently they should and do control who gets to see the code.
That said, I would desperately like MS to release the code under an open-source, but closed-project style licence; that is, the code belongs to them, and for any derivative code MS is automatically granted a licence to to sublicence and do whatever they wish. It should not be permissible for the code to be included in another product without the explicit say so from MS. Microsoft could protect theselves financially by being the only source for binaries. BillG are you listening? Win2K, with open source could be sooooo good, and you would still make a stack of money. Plus you'd have a huge team looking at improving the software, for nothing.
It's worth a shot if the code has escaped. At worst you'll get a second product line.
The company was actually called Spider, and the Spider TCP/IP stack (which was BSD-derived) was used in exactly one MS operating system: Windows NT 3.1 (1993-1994).
Windows NT 3.1 was released in 1993, and replaced in 1994 by Windows NT 3.5, which was much smaller, much faster and used an MS-written TCP/IP stack (which was presumably smaller and faster than the BSD-derived Spider stack). The MS TCP/IP stack in NT 3.5 was then ported to Win9x for the release of Windows 95.
The lifetime of NT 3.1 was very brief, and during that brief lifetime, hardly anyone used it (because it was too big, too slow and there was no Win32 software), so the fact that its TCP/IP stack was BSD-derived is not really something to brag about.
Guys...
I can't believe you haven't figured out what the EML files are yet.
Anyone remember NIMDA? The worm from 2002 I think? It had this exact same effect of sticking infected eml files all over your folders (by taking some names from your files, and others randomly). Opening those EML files or forwarding them would guarantee future and constant infection.
It's clearly evident that this machine was infected by nimda and got port-scanned and found. The rest of the code is probably going to come soon enough, unless MS already found out and pulled the plug.
By the way, alpha doesn't mean "Alpha Version" but the Alpha CPU made by DEC, now owned by Compaq.
IT WAS LIBERATED!!!!!!
The "Insert Quote Here" line is almost as predictable as inserting an actual quote.
I read rotten.com, I think I'm about as fscking tainted as they come. It's absurd to think that there would be ground for a lawsuit against an open source project you worked on because you had at one point glossed over the NT kernel source or something. That's like homeopathics who believe that remedies should contain miniscule quantities of active ingredients. In fact, the "strongest" formulations usually contain not a single molecule of the substances in question. Zero parts per billion -- pure water.
I've seen the Windows CE source. Maybe I should never program again because MS could sue me! I think not.
PS No offence to homeopathics, I don't care what crazy shite you belive in.
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com
We have identified over one million lines of our IP in Microsoft's source code. While I cannot share most of them because they are a trade secret, here are three of the most glaring examples:
#include
for( ; ; )
if(!stop) {
Many of these lines have been copied verbatim several thousand times. We do not want to, but are forced to sue Microsoft for unlicensed use of our intellectual property.
We will institute a licensing program called gplSource which will allow Windows users to obtain the legal rights to use our IP. This cost will be significantly discounted to early adopters.
Already at least three Fortune 500 companies have seen the validity of our claims and have paid these fees on a per-CPU basis to continue using Windows. While we cannot divulge their names, they do exist. Really!
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra
Think it absurd if you want; the law certainly allows for it. It works like this:
1) You see some proprietary source, either legally or otherwise;
2) You later work on some open source project;
3) The copyright holder of the proprietary source in 1) looks at the open source project and decides that some sections of the code look strikingly similar to their own code. They further discover that you wrote or contributed to those sections. They call their lawyer. Now, it may well be a combination of "coincidence plus a limited number of ways to do X" that caused the similarity, but you're going to have to convince a judge and/or jury of that. The other side will have to convince them that you copied it. They've got the striking similarity plus the fact that you've seen their source. What have you got?
Now, since you've seen the Windows CE source, why don't you ask the Samba project if you can join, and tell them you've seen MS source code (whether legally or not doesn't matter; seeing it is all that matters) and see if they will take you on as a developer.
I bet they won't.
MS's game department isn't what brings in all the money. It's their Windows and Office products that make the money.
They can grin a bear it when some games are pirated. Why do you think they (try to) crush companies that make mod chips for the XBox? Some things are more important.
And this is the source code to Windows. This is NOT just another product.
Anyone who dares to host it will be sat on until they are dead. Hell hath no fury.
Claiming this is just another product shows your definit lack of ability to comprehend the scope of this leak and the importance of it to MS's bottom line.
The legal costs required to shut down warez sites over a game generally are more than the amount of the losses. The legal costs required to crush the fools who dare to host the Windows source comes nowhere near the potential losses due to the leak.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
open up a command window and type "strings c:\windows\system32\ftp.exe"
This will return:
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
It's now all over online news..
l eak_1.html 3 312451 9 41292.htm i onprint/021204cccanatmicrosoft.149f2b31.html s &file=article&sid=671 n t/0,289142,sid1_gci950346,00.html
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/02/12/HNmicro
http://www.ebcvg.com/news.php?id=1903
http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/1076628412.html
http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/
http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/business/7
http://www.wvec.com/sharedcontent/nationworld/nat
http://www.komotv.com/stories/29778.htm
http://www.cryptonomicon.net/modules.php?name=New
http://www.dvhardware.net/article2423.html
http://searchwin2000.techtarget.com/originalConte
[alk]
"Slashdot...let's see...NASA...the FCC...Windows source code leaked?!"
[click]
A fatal exception OE has occured at 0028:C001539A. The current application will be terminated.
"...what the hell?"
( meanwhile, deep inside Windows... )
if( sourceLeaked == true && url = "slashdot.org")
{
BSOD();
SendEmail( "bgates@microsoft.com", "IP of teh L1n|_|x haxx0r: "+userIP );
}
Microsoft Confirms Windows Code Leak
---
Microsoft Corp. on Thursday confirmed that the source code for two versions of its Windows operating system has been leaked, a security breach that could give hackers important intelligence about how to exploit flaws in software run by most of the world's computers.
"Today we became aware that incomplete portions of Windows 2000 and NT 4.0 source code was illegally made available on the Internet," said Microsoft spokesman Tom Pilla. "It's illegal for third parties to post Microsoft source code and we take that activity very seriously."
Pilla said the company does not know how much of the operating system code was compromised, but he said Microsoft believes it was not a complete version of either operating system.
There was no indication that the code was stolen through a breach of Microsoft's internal network, Pilla said. He said the FBI is investigating the matter.
Computer security experts said the release of Windows source code could pose a significant threat to Internet security, depending on what portion of the code was leaked.
A leak of any portion of the Windows code "could dramatically increase the probability that new zero-day vulnerabilities will be found," said Alan Paller, director of research the SANS Institute, a security training group based in Bethesda, Md.
"Zero day" exploits are highly effective attacks that occur when hackers discover a way to exploit a security vulnerability before or at the same time as a software maker learns of the flaw. Attackers can then use this information to launch a virus or worm that exploits the security hole before a patch can be released to fix the problem.
Thor Larholm, senior security researcher at Newport Beach, Calif.-based PivX Solutions, said the Windows source code file being traded on the Internet appears to be roughly 660 megabytes in size, about the size of one CD-ROM's worth of data. That is far short of the estimated 40 gigabytes of data that makes up the entire 40 million lines of code in the Windows operating system.
Even a partial leak "is a potentially very serious problem for Microsoft," Larholm said. "Just look at the vulnerabilities that are discovered by people who didn't have access to the source code."
The origin of the leak is not currently known. The Redmond, Wash.-based software giant closely guards the computer code that comprises the company's operating system. But Microsoft does license portions of its programming code to security researchers and more than 50 universities under its "Shared Source Initiative."
Microsoft last year said it would began sharing complete copies of its source code with governments around the world that want to validate the security of the software before deploying it in national defense and other sensitive areas. Microsoft signed an agreement in 2003 that lets the Australian government inspect the source code of Windows 2000, Windows XP and Windows Server 2003. Other counties, including India, are exploring similar arrangements.
Unlike open-source software like the widely used Linux operating system, the code comprising Microsoft's Windows software is not open for public inspection. Linux users are encouraged to participate in an open, continuous cycle of modifications and upgrades that its proponents say results in systems that are more secure and reliable than those powered by proprietary code like Windows.
Yeah, there are a few trivial and ancient/obsolete BSD command-line tools in Windows (finger, ftp, nslookup, rcp, rsh). They were ported from BSD, and you can see that they contain the appropriate copyright attribution. Note that none of the kernel-mode files (e.g. the TCP/IP drivers) contain any such strings.
MS is naturally not opposed to using freely-available BSD code to achieve better interoperability with BSD/UNIX. MS Windows Services for UNIX, for example, includes a lot of modern BSD tools ported from OpenBSD. That's reasonable, of course, since it's supposed to provide a set of command-line tools familiar to UNIX systems administrators, and OpenBSD tools are known to be relatively good in terms of security.
Importantly, MS's porting of OpenBSD userland tools to Services for UNIX is also good for OpenBSD, because it helps to establish those tools as something of a standard. If hordes of MS users become used to the OpenBSD userland tools, they'll be much likelier to start using OpenBSD if they want a UNIX-like OS than to start using, say, Linux.
The common claim about the MS TCP/IP stack from open source zealots is that MS 'stole' the Windows TCP/IP stack from BSD because it couldn't write one of its own, which is of course complete nonsense. The handful of BSD tools in Windows are/were there to make it easier for UNIX users to access their systems from Windows. They're in no way critical to Windows as an operating system (in the way that, for example, a TCP/IP stack is).
Hmm. That's my tracker. And it's dead now. I probably should learn to not have a public tracker.. *sigh*
Anyway, at least 1000 people got it down, so it shouldn't be too hard for some of them to make a new torrent. But I'm definetly not going to host it anymore.
--
alge of flauna
http://alge.nlc.no/
$ grep -r -i fuck *x :fucks?sMxl impse_index:fucking?sMjl come/html/webapp.cpp: // HighContrast mode is turned on. This totally fucks our style sheet as most of it will/ shell/windbgrm .c: // The user fucked uph : * !!!!!!!!!!!!!!DOING SO FUCKS THE BUILD PROCESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!n trol/midi/map.c: // !!!this is fucked if a map goes to multiple physical devices
bsc/.glimpse_index:fuck?sMP
bsc/.glimpse_inde
bsc/.glimpse_index:fucked?sM`
bsc/.g
private/shell/applets/we
private/shell/shell32/copy.c:// want to fuck with.
private/shell/shell32/util.cpp:// the fucking alpha cpp compiler seems to fuck up the goddam type "LPITEMIDLIST", so to work
private/shell/shell32/util.cpp:// around the fucking peice of shit compiler we pass the last param as an void *instead of a LPITEMIDLIST
private/shell/shell32/util.h:// the fucking alpha cpp compiler seems to fuck up the goddam type "LPITEMIDLIST", so to work
private/shell/shell32/util.h:// around the fucking peice of shit compiler we pass the last param as an LPVOID instead of a LPITEMIDLIST
private/windbg64/debugger/tl/remote
private/windows/media/avi/verinfo.16/verinfo.
private/windows/shell/co
It seems like they've confirmed that indeed, part of the OS's have been leaked.
6 48-2004Feb12.html
source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37
[alk]
Security bugs.. Nah...
_ 01.html
ORGANIZATION=Mainsoft Co. Ltd.
MAINSOFTLM_HOST=@xora /app-defaults
$ grep -r strcpy -i . | wc
10454 42054 1069145
Where it was ganked from:
There is a core dump file inside the windows 2000 (sp1) archive, it clearly shows that the source was stolen from a system at Mainsoft. The following url confirms that they did have access to the leaked code. http://mainsoft.com/news/press_releases/2000_3_22
The actual strings which confirm this:
PWD=/usr/ms/win2k_sp1/private/security/msv_sspi
DOMAIN=mainsoft.com
REPLYTO=eyala@mainsoft.com
MWBATCH_SERVER=lod:8000
MSOFTLM_HOST=@xor
XAPPLRESDIR=/il2/users/eyal
EDITOR=vi
BASE_LIBPATH=/usr/lib
http://www.mainsoft.com/corporate/exec_profiles.ht ml
At the very bottom is the owner of the core file.
A friend took a look at their FTP server, looks like an unpatched wuftpd, gee, i wonder how they got in....
220 circle.mainsoft.com FTP server (Version wu-2.6.1(1) Thu Oct 12 09:06:04 PDT 2000) ready.
Yes, Microsoft is acknowledging the use of BSD licensed code. I don't know if they are doing it in the source code, but since they are putting copyright notices in the release notes for their software they probably have copyright notices in the source code too. Look at the copyright information on their page, they not only honor Berkeley but also a lot of other people that have been actively contributing to various BSD software such as Luigi Rizzo.
I'm submitting patches to the 2.6 kernel for the blue screen of death. I'm hoping they make it in to the next release.
http://torrent.spyderlake.com/download.php?info_ha sh=f03fc1e04869294d5644d3c8c5d0fb8f2d26aa59
If the source code got leaked, Win2k will get exploited by...
Apparently the leak has been confirmed but it's some of the source code, not all of it. Only time will tell whether it's an important bit of source code.
I mean, with linux there's a temptation but nobody runs it.
You cannot think of Linux in the same way that you are thinking of Windows.
Two people who use a Linux system could be running entirely different systems with few or no common applications across the systems - this is why it is unlikely that something like a worm virus would propagate through the Linux community in the same way it would through the Windows community.
Linux is by no means immune from attack, but if one comes, it will be a particular application (e.g. Apache) that will get attacked and whether a specific Apache system is affected will depend on the version, what modules are loaded to allow things like CGI scripts, etc.
When you say nobody runs it, I agree it's a minority on the desktop but the applications that run on Linux (and the likes of BSD, Solaris, etc.) like sendmail, BIND, Apache, etc. are very widespread and a lot more so than IIS or Exchange in many cases.
MS leaked it intentionally so they can get everyone to patch with their DRM system.
Microsoft are an arrogant company and have no doubts about getting DRM through the door with the way they do things currently - DRM's success or failure is now simply based on the level of it's acceptance in the user base, nothing more.
If anything, a source code leakage would allow everyone access to how MS's DRM technology works.
Whatever the extent of the leak, MS will downplay it because to not do so will affect the share prices. There is no conspiracy theory here...
I mean, I like linux and all but this isn't the way to win at all.
There is no battle here. Linux exists despite Microsoft and offers an alternative way of doing things to Windows.
Microsoft may attack Open Source on a regular basis but the Open Source community does not care - it is just creating good quality, free software and defending it's right to do so. This will happen no differently with or without competition from Microsoft.
I thought we were going to slowly beat them back into submission and competition, not completly screw them and quite a few million over.
You're now implying that a member of the Linux / Open Source community stole the source code and I resent that.
No Open Source programmer cares about seeing MS proprietary code. To do so would run the strong risk of inadvertently incorporating MS code into an application and nothing would please MS more as it would allow them to send the copyright lawyers in.
The only thing the Open Source community will care about is if MS's code contains GPL code but I doubt even MS would be stupid enough to do something like that.
Well, time to begin caching DNS entries to websites I use the most, and it may be high time to backup some of this data and close all the nat ports on my router just to be extra safe.
Perhaps you'd also like to stock up your kitchen cupboard with canned food and make yourself up a tin foil helmet also...
If you haven't secured your router then I'm surprised you haven't been attacked already. Also, the core DNS system mainly runs on BIND & Solaris (so I'm led to believe) so it's unlikely that this would be affected.
In all honesty, you are being far too sensationalist at this stage and my advice is simply to wait and see what happens. I doubt it will be very much...
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Viruses are well supported by their authors, their program code is fast, compact and efficient and they tend to become more sophisticated as they mature.
So, Windows is not a virus.
qntm.org
4667 *.c files. 5601 *.h files. 2255 *.cpp files. 26 *.hpp files. 1456 *.cxx files. 961 *.hxx files. 148
Lines of code:Some grepping..Bugs anyone?Curious; grepping for 'linux':'grep -r -i's with no results: GNU/Linux, GNU GPL. Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer,
From bugcheck.c, the code which makes the screen blue...
// make the screen blueN G_FILTER)NULL); // enable display string // set to use entire screen
if (InbvIsBootDriverInstalled()) {
InbvAcquireDisplayOwnership();
InbvResetDisplay();
InbvSolidColorFill(0,0,639,479,4);
InbvSetTextColor(15);
InbvInstallDisplayStringFilter((INBV_DISPLAY_STRI
InbvEnableDisplayString(TRUE);
InbvSetScrollRegion(0,0,639,479);
}
I.O.U One Sig.
So many people are talking about open source stuff that no one has looked at the obvious. Microsoft did this on purpose. Let the code conveniently get out onto the net and then let more and more security holes be found. Nice sales tactic to get everyone to move to Windows XP or Server 2003. Microsoft - "you know, if most of guys out there refuse to upgrade then we will give you real reason to upgrade, this is our new licensing plan." Reminds me of mechanics damaging cars themselves just to do repairs.
The Reuter's article on Yahoo contains a number of inaccuracies that are clearly prejudicial, and are probably sourced within Microsoft.
It (the story) amounts to an obvious attempt to spin up a scenario that will lead ultimately to criminal prosectution of persons involved in Open Source. And the story being such an obvious attempt at spin doctoring could lead one to believe there is more going on here than one poorly written news story...
Apparently Gates & Co. have decided their civil case fronted by SCO is not quite strong enough, and are trying to establish criminal precedent in order that, whether the current SCO effort succeeds or fails, the next case will be criminal.
One could hope that the courts will develop enough tech skillz to determine that the line
showing up in both windoze and Linux code does not constitute proof of theft under some Gatesien system of jurisprudence ...
Examples of the (imo) prejudicial language in the story [emphasis mine]:
There is no evidence cited that the code is being "traded". It appears that it is being distributed, but I haven't seen any reports of it being exchanged for anything else. This is key, since the languaged used here implies a profit motive on the part of the alleged "traders"; necesary for the criminal prosectution because there is a need to establish that the code is worth a great deal...
This sounds like it came straight out of a Microsoft publicist. It is an emotional appeal statement, designed to imply a henious threat to the alleged victim, Microsoft (and by implication, SCO).
The statement is factually inaccurate, even as metaphore. Source code is a principle part of the products manufactured by most software companies, but expertise in the creation of source code is more properly the "lifeblood" of the company.
Of course, Microsoft is a bit challenged in the expertise dept, but that should be applied to "any software company"....
If it is indeed "illegal" for 3rd parties to post the sources, then why would the aforementioned "agreements" require threat of civil action? If it's illegal, there should be no need to lititgate. The threats would be of prosecution, not litigation.
Furthermore, the word "share" here is ridiculous. If you've ever looked at what it takes to get an NDA to look at M$ sources, there's no "sharing" to it. It's a business transaction, and it doesn't happen unless M$ gets the lions "share" of any potential benefit.
WTF? Well, admittedly I haven't written any "programs running on Windows" in quite a few years, but I no idea things had changed quite that much... [that's sarcasm in case you can't tell; the statement is just plain wrong]
"The Internet is made of cats."