Slashdot Mirror


FBI on the Windows Source Code Theft

Chris Gondek writes "There are various articles about the Stolen Windows Source Code, but today it is confirmed that an FBI task force hunted for a cyber-criminal who posted on the internet source code for Windows which says 'I can confirm that the Northwest Cybercrime Task Force was investigating, FBI spokeswoman Robbie Burroughs said. The posted program is part of the source codes, or blueprints, for Windows 2000 and Windows NT 4.0, according to the company.' "

21 of 504 comments (clear)

  1. "In jeopardy is Microsoft's near-monopoly" by zegebbers · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In any case, Microsoft's code allows the company to keep its near-monopoly on computer operating systems, for the same reason Coca-Cola guards its secret formula.
    Yes, It's very lucky that there is absolutely no way to obtain any MS source code!

  2. Illegal to download? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The article says FBI spokesperson said 'It's illegal to download it.'. How can that be? Is it really so? What if your girlfriend downloads a file called 'cookingrecipes.zip' and it happens to contain stuff she did not know - such as Windows source code? Does that mean innocent downloaders can be put in jail?

    1. Re:Illegal to download? by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ignorance rarely is a valid defence in the eyes of the law. If you're speeding at 70mph in an area where the speed limit is 50 mph then you not knowing that you were above the speed limit is not a valid defence.

      Similarly, if you hold a barbeque and your kids sneak off with some beers, get drunk and do something stupid then you're still liable for any laws that you may have unknowingly broken (providing alcohol to a minor, etc).

      Just because you didn't know you were breaking the law that doesn't excuse you from any possible punishment. Look at what happened to the grandfather who got hit with a hammer by RIAA because his grandkids used his PC to download copyrighted material over P2P networks without his knowledge. He had no clue what the kids were up to but he was still held liable for their actions.

      If your theoretical "cookingrecipes.zip" defence was held up in court I'd be surprised. It would be carte blanche for copyright infringers, paedophiles and anyone else intent on evading the law to disguise their activity by giving the files they were swapping innocent file names and then claiming that they "didn't know" what the files really contained.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    2. Re:Illegal to download? by martinX · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Look at what happened to the grandfather who got hit with a hammer by RIAA because his grandkids used his PC to download copyrighted material over P2P networks without his knowledge. He had no clue what the kids were up to but he was still held liable for their actions.

      And so you think it's right? Given the many many ways of disguising the true nature of files, images, URLs etc before they are downloaded, how can anyone in their right mind think that any computer user who had no intention to break the law could be held liable for grabbing something they didn't know was illegal to have.

      Your analogies are bad analogies. Find some new ones.

      --
      When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
    3. Re:Illegal to download? by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      True. And if you redefine copyright infringement as "theft," I suppose a downloader would be liable for "misappropriation damages" under the Uniform Trade Secret Act. But damages could only appear if the downloader were to do something commercial with the code (or possibly put it up for upload). So I don't think that the trade secret angle matters that much here.

  3. MIcrosoft is ultradevious by John+Jorsett · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Aha. Microsoft gets one of its sock puppets to expose some obsolete source files of an old version of Windows, and has them do it on a Linux box in order to make it look like Linux is as shaky in the security department as Windows. My God those people are Machavellian. I'll bet some of the same people behind the fake Mars landers are behind this.

  4. Re:Not normally pro Microsoft by bhima · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The source for Linux is available.

    I haven't had many problems with it.

    Maybe you are over reacting.

    Not that I condone this

    --
    Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
  5. Re:Blueprints? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Technically, you could call source code blueprints. The compiler follows the instructions you've requested, then translates it into assembly and then object code. Some compilers will do a good job (Intel's) and others will needlessly bloat the specifications (GCC). Just like building a house.

  6. Re:Blueprints? by lseltzer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's a perfect metaphor. Computers don't run C code, just as we don't live in drawings of houses. Both are human-readable representations that we can use to build the implementation.

  7. Re:Not normally pro Microsoft by smittyoneeach · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What good was gained from doing this? What benifit is there?
    This whole affair is going to have one effect similar to that of major virus upgrades: it will scare the recalcitrant to upgrade.
    Deliberately falling short of carrying that analysis any further...

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  8. Re:Not so much fuss about Debian or SF break ins by krumms · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Duh. Corporate America and the US Government are business partners.

    The more money you have, the more of an American you really are in the eyes of the government.

  9. Who'd want that old junk anyway? by no+longer+myself · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I'm pretty sure from the posting pattern here on Slashdot that Microsoft has moles posting and trolling (and you guys know who you are), but for the life of me, I can't recall any law (IANAL) that prohibits the downloading of a "leaked file". Oh sure, we all know that possession of certain kinds of pornography and other files can get you into nasty trouble, but really... If that were the case, then why didn't the FBI start investigating IBM when SCO started belly-aching?

    On the flip side, I've already given up on Microsoft, and want nothing further to do with them or their products, so somebody leaking their code is almost a bad joke to me at this point. The most likely conspiracy to come out of this is that the next version of the Linux kernal will have a cloud of accusations that it derived some of its functionality from Windows 2000 source. (Oh please...)

    I guess the ugly part is dealing with the feds out there who are intent on taking names and kicking ass... After all, it's a national emergency! Microsoft's code has been leaked!

    Feh.

    Many of us have woke up to the fact that you don't need Windows to accomplish your goals on a computer. While the rest of of us are trying to actually get something done with our computers (instead of updating them every 15 minutes), Microsoft is suddenly crying out "Thieves!". Just how does MS come up with these horribly written plot devices?

  10. The Immaculate Transmission by grouse · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Here's what Microsoft's press release on the inadvertent release says:
    [I]nvestigation has shown this was not the result of any breach of Microsoft's corporate network or internal security, nor is it related to Microsoft's Shared Source Initiative or its Government Security Program...

    Interesting. From this, one must conclude that either (a) Microsoft legitimately releases the code to others outside these two programs, but we don't know about it; (b) Microsoft has absolutely no idea how the source was released but is lying through its teeth claiming there was no security breach nor an unauthorized release from its shared source programs; (c) Microsoft leaked the code itself for nefarious purposes (e.g. destroying ReactOS).

    We report, you decide.

  11. Re:Not normally pro Microsoft by Baron_Yam · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You're quite right - but there is a difference...

    Let's use the home metaphor - you live in a house in a neighbourhood built by "MS Homes". They are nice, comfortable homes, but the security system involves closing your front door with a plastic latch. Because the latch doesn't LOOK like plastic, everyone feels secure. Burglars, however, suspect there is an easy way in to the homes.

    Now, if none of the good guys examine the security and say, "Hey, maybe these latches should be steel", then eventually a bad guy will figure it out and your home is open for business.

    In such an event, if a good guy opened *a* front door on a *single* MS home, then posted a note in the local newpaper that maybe latches should be upgraded, I'd sleep with a shotgun until my latch was replaced. In the end, I'd have a safer home and know it. Without the good guy, I don't have a safe home, AND I'm unaware until a break in.

  12. Re:Not normally pro Microsoft by __past__ · · Score: 5, Insightful
    But the source for Linux is available both for attackers and for white hats to find and fix bugs. If anyone would find a security problem in the leaked Windows code, they cannot simply send a patch to Microsoft - they would admit to have illegally obtained the code doing so.

    Open Source code is available for everyone. Only criminals can use the Windows code.

  13. Re:Piracy != lost profit by thales · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Piracy of Windows hurts Linux more than Microsoft because most of the piracy occurs in areas where the majority of the people can't afford the high cost of a Windows OS. If it were impossible to pirate a copy of MS Windows, then most of these people would be using more affordable Linux distros, rather than buying Windows and Windows software.

    --
    Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
  14. Re:Torrent for W2K and NT4 source by phritz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As has been pointed out, you are not anonymous when you use bitTorrent. If you're stupid enough to download from the links in the parent, there's a very good chance that someone at microsoft or even the FBI will be logging your IP address. Don't be stupid - ignore the parent.

  15. Re:Scapegoat by mattyp · · Score: 3, Insightful
    you guys have it all wrong: IMHO, microsoft posted the code themselves. they are planning ahead, so they can be like SCO, and accuse linux of incorporating their IP in the future... the problem is, they had to leak it first... notice they released only old versions.

    Why did they take the risk? Because it's not a risk. It turns out they've learned the lessons from opensource, and now they embrace it, though in a familiar embrace, extend and smother way.

  16. there is no half of globalization by axxackall · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Oh, that's easy: have your friend in Russia to give you stunnel address and enjoy how FBI is weak attempting to figure out anything about IP address in Russia. Or China. Well, actually in many countries.

    I said it before and I'll say it again: the globalization MUST be improved. If they want investigations across the borders - they have to remove the borders. That include the freedom to trade across the borders, the freedom to hire across the borders, the freedom to ELECT across the borders, the freedom to immigrate across the borders.

    You don't wanna give that freedom to people? Enjoy your useless attempts to sue DVD hackers in Norvey and find IP addresses in Russia.

    Remember: there is no such thing as "half of globalization". It either exists givig equal opportunities and freedoms to everyone, or it doesn't exist at all.

    --

    Less is more !
  17. Speaks volumes about our society by Aslan72 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I hope this doesn't sound too conspiracy-theory oriented, but I find it interesting the amount of pull MS has in our society now. We're talking about a product that, for all purposes, is still a product and yet the verbage that I've seen on it makes it sound like someone just gave out a key national secret.

    Granted, we have so much riding on Windows that it being compromised is akin to loosing a national secret, but who is to blame here? If we lean so much on MS's code being secure, why are people storing data on there that could be a probem if the system was hacked?

    --pete

  18. Would somebody please tell me by AnalogDiehard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    why it takes less than six days for M$ to be hot-n-heavy on the trail of the source of the leak while it takes M$ six months to patch a serious security vulnerability in their source code?

    --
    Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10