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.' "
Can they track torrents? Not that I'm afraid of the Fumbling Bumbling Idiots or anything...
There will be a scapegoat regardless if they find the real criminal or not. After all, Microsoft wants to ease the minds of consumers and investors.
Life is not for the lazy.
The security officer at Microsoft, Scott Charney, used to be the head of the FBI Cybercrime unit. I'm not sure of his exact title at either position, but I remember him speaking to my college class shortly after he left the FBI and before he started at MS.
What's with calling code "blueprints"?
The BBCs Bill Thompson says in a recent article:
"In the coverage of the release of the Windows source code we've seen journalists try to describe what it is that has been posted to websites around the net, but those who didn't descend into cliche seemed only able to use the most misleading metaphors.
Perhaps the most common is to describe the source code as a "blueprint", presumably because we've all seen movies in which architects pore over blueprints of buildings under attack, or because middle-class readers all have the blueprints of their extensions carefully filed away.
But source code isn't the blueprint: it is the thing itself. The source is the set of instructions given to the computer that, when executed, cause the behaviour we see on screen."
but at freenode a guy said he downloaded the source in one of his company computers and on the other day the admin/root got an e-mail from Microsoft with a warning and the IP which did the illegal download.
As one have already said here, the best thing to do is to stay away from that file.
Yes, they can track you WHILE you download, but not afterwards, unless logs are kept (and the FBI have access to them).
You'd think the FBI had some sort of pro-corporate bias!
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
MSHTML.dll for those that don't know is the heart of Internet Explorer , (iexplore.exe is just a wrapper for mshtml) prepare for some exciting browser exploits , Winsock should ensure there is plenty of fun to be had with windows networking sockets
and don't forget MSPaint was in the source tree so Adobe had better watch out
After reading the article, I can only say it's pure PR speak, factually error prone, and more than a bit slanted. Perhaps this paragraph explains the timing:
"The announcement of the leak came on the same day Microsoft pushed in Washington for tougher anti-counterfeit legislation in the United States and worldwide, saying pervasive pirating of computer software was hurting the industry."
Given that any number of companies and computer professionals have access to Windows source for various reasons, it's not unreasonable to think that occasionally chunks of it appear in the wild.
And certainly a lack of source code hasn't slowed down the virus and worm industry.
Consequently I have to assume that this story is just a way for Microsoft to build support for even more draconian anti-piracy and DRM laws.
As a post-script - the original post and magazine link should be modded +5 funny at best. It's really quite pathetic.
Three Squirrels
You can ask the FBI to investigate any cybercrime that has damages of, I believe, $5000 or more.
Counterfeiters don't want the source code, they just copy the binaries and maybe a hack to circumvent registration.
"Computer activists" even less so -- copying Windows code would poison any GPL project.
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.
True; but the reason Coke and MS have near monopolies is because of marketing, not innate superiority of their products (Pepsi wins most blind taste tests; Macs win all usability tests).
In parts of Asia and the former Soviet Union piracy rates approach 90 per cent, they said. As a result, the US software industry loses $US13 billion ($A16.52 billion) a year for counterfeiting and other forms of software piracy.
Debatable; but irrelevant anyway.
The US Congress is considering legislation designed to close a number of legal loopholes often allowing counterfeiters to get away with their activities, specifically prohibiting trafficking in genuine authentication components.
Again, the idea that this will make piracy more prevalent -- it will have no affect at all on MS warez.
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
It amazes me just how much emphasis is placed on financial losses due to piracy. Just because people are using pirated versions of software does not mean they would have bought it anyway! The figure qouted is a "best case scenario" projection of what could have been new sales, but the companies are not actually losing that amount from money they have already earned.
I don't think anyone has ever been prosecuted for downloading copyrighted material. Certainly for uploading it. But downloading is another ballgame.
The leak of the code scares the shit out of me. We've had some rather nasty security bits on the net lately and this is not a reassuring development.
will increase the time I have to spend securing my system. although true, my main target in such a suit would MS itself for (1) not securing the code properly (2) recent stories (and past ones) of them sitting on security patches for months on end.
If someone broke into my house and I followed my handbook and best practice about securing my house and it was STILL penetrated I want to go after the security document, not the intruder (the intruder would be handled by the criminal courts, my case is civil and monetary in nature since everytime some BS exploit is released and MS hasn't a patch my company is spending money to monitor and sort things out.
Vary rarely will you see a class-action suit against an individual (I can't recall one, just ones against companies when their neglegence is going to lead to a large cash settlement..... I wonder how the MS lobbyest have protected them from such action)
Not illegal in China, India, Asia, Europe, Scandinavia... I can hear them laughing from here
Well the defense of U.S. computers does depend a lot on the security of MS-Windows. And Microsoft has said that if the source code were made public then it would compromise the security of Windows.
So...
prepare for the imminent attack?
If you believe what Microsoft said in court, and what the US government said on TV, it might be time to look at buying generators and water filters...
Unless you use something like Freenet to download.
But even there they can see your IP. There just is no way to prove it was you that did the request, or was just 'forwarding' the request thru your node....
---- Booth was a patriot ----
We can't seem to get them to respond to infrastructure crime here. Former AT&T towers across the country are being stripped of materials, presumably for salvage, except some are active (and more being reactivated). Value of the materials stripped is well above $5K (many many times), not to mention the cost of labor to replace it.
Local law enforcement has tried getting FBI help on a national crime. No go. Has the FBI become a paid political (read: send your donation here for prompt attention) entity like our congresscritters?
I am thinking about someone selling you illegal items. If that item is insanely cheap, then you should have red flags go off and avoid it.
In this case, if they can find you downloading it, they surely can tell if you used it. If you downloaded it, and deleted it after figuring out what it was, then I feel sure you are clear.
If you have the recipes zip sitting there to look at later, then this could be sticky.
Regardless, simply downloading a file (without any type of intent) would be hard for a court to swallow. If so, you could mail child porn, source code, etc (using a non-descriptive filename) to anyone putting them in legal dires.
Suggestions?
...between the real world and the ideal world.
First, get rid of the real bad guys. Once they are guarenteed to be gone, I'll support locking up anyone who enjoys 'testing' security on computers. Until then, they are a lesser evil made tolerable by their effect on the virulence of a greater evil.
On a side note - how often do you think the locks on your doors help you? I have yet to see a residential door that would stop a good shoulder. My old house had a lovely steel door - in a thin wood frame that would split if you looked at it. Windows break if they can't be jimmied. Only once was my house ever entered because I didn't lock the door - and that was a new neighbour who was mortified that she'd entered the wrong house!
They might be bad analogies, but they're the law. Same goes for your cookingrecipes.zip. The only way for your girlfriend to get out of this is to actually call the police and notify them that that's not what she downloaded.
:)
Come to think of it, maybe people should do that. I can just imagine how happy the police would be about all those calls
Its your JOB to make sure that you arent vunerable..
You say that also to victims of rape or other crimes?
10 Bits= $.25
100 Bits= $.50
110 Bits= $.75
1000 Bits= 1 byte
The source code wasn't stolen from MS directly, but from some third party who had access to it?
Presumably the security concept of tagging copies and recording :)
who they issue them to hasn't occured to Microsoft. Their human
resource department must go to extremes to employ morons.
siggy played guitar
I'm surprised nobody has actually commented on the src here, maybe because they noticed the same thing I did - how good it is.
Ever try reading the back of the coke bottle? They used have cocain in it, but had to remove it.
... they were harvesting coca plants ... extracting some coca derivatives, BUT NOT THE COCAINE ... really makes me wonder what happened to all that cocaine ....
As I understand it (sorry I forget where I read this), although cocaine was removed from the formula, Coca-Cola continued to use other flavoring agents from the coca plant for some time (although I gather that today's Coke uses no coca derivatives whatsoever).
So
-kgj
-kgj
enterp.bmp - a picture of the USS Enterprise D....i wonder what paramount will think?
A very high yield coca plant will have 1.5% of its weight as coca, with a normal coca plant at less than .5%. I think Coca-Cola used/uses coca plants that have very little coca in them, so there is less to remove. What is removed isn't actually cocaine, but a precursor to cocaine base (which isn't coke yet either). I was under the impression however that the Coca-Cola company STILL uses the coca plant for flavoring, and they are the only company in the US that can legally import the coca plant. The process is kept quite secret, primarily to prevent threat and/or scandal.
... I can't help but picture mountains of cocaine precursor ... of course, that's an "industrial waste by-product" ... the company probably, uh, burns the stuff ... or dumps it at sea ... yeah, that's it: mountains of cocaine precursor, dumped at sea every day.
Even with a low-cocaine coca plant, given how much Coca-Cola gets bottled and sold every second of the day, 24/7, around the world
In any case, Coca-Coca has no shortage of scandals to deal with, e.g. alleged CIA connections, screwing Bob Kolody, etc....
-kgj
-kgj
you may receive a letter like the one below if you pull the file off of edonkey (Windows.source.code.w2k...). this is kind of ironic, because the file downloadeed was a fake.
> Hash: SHA1
>
> J.K. Weston
> Microsoft Corporation
> One Microsoft Way
> Redmond, WA 98052
> jkweston@microsoft.com
> Tel: (425) 703-5529
>
>
>
> URGENT/IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUIRED
> VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
>
> Re: NOTICE OF POTENTIAL UNLAWFUL DISTRIBUTION OF MICROSOFT SOURCE CODE AT:
> xx.xx.xx.xx
> Date of Infringement: Detail below.
>
> Dear xxxxxxxxxx:
>
> We have received information that one of your users as identified above by
> the SITE/URL xxxxxxxxx may have engaged in the unlawful distribution
> of Microsoft's source code for Windows 2000, and/or Windows NT4, by
> distributing and offering for download these source code files via a
> peer-to-peer network.
>
> Since you own this IP address, we request that you take appropriate action
> against the account holder under your Abuse Policy/Terms of Service
> Agreement.
>
> We also kindly request that you forward this notice promptly to the user
> of the IP address listed above at the time and date stated.
>
>
>
> To the user at xx.xx.xx.xx:
>
> The unauthorized copying and distribution of Microsoft's protected source
> code is a violation of both civil and criminal copyright and trade secret
> laws. If you have downloaded and are making the source code available for
> downloading by others, you are violating Microsoft's rights, and could be
> subject to severe civil and criminal penalties.
>
> Microsoft demands that you immediately (1) cease making Microsoft's source
> code available or otherwise distributing it, (2) destroy any and all
> copies you may have in your possession, and (3) provide us any and all
> information about how you came into possession of this code.
>
> Microsoft takes these issues very seriously, and will pursue legal action
> against individuals who take part in the proliferation of it source code.
> We look forward to your prompt cooperation. Should you need to contact
> me, I can be reached at the address above or at jkweston@microsoft.com.
>
> Very truly yours,
> By
> J.K. Weston
Is anyone else fed up with articles constantly referring to source code as blueprints? I think the analogy has been overused to the point where it isn't necessary anymore.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
They do know where the source was taken from. Files in the archive being passed around indicated that the computer was owned by an exec at Mainsoft. Add, in a nice ironic twist, the computer was a linux box ...
. as p
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1526831,00
I hate stupid people. This journalist is stupid. I hate this journalist.
:) OK, they forgot to add "without permission from the copyright owner".
:)
:) And I would really like to know who the hell are these activists? What, "Americans for cleaner code" or "C coders for forward compatibility"? And he messed up the plurals again. It's source code now, but it "were public"...
:) But since he is, let me just say that nothing like that was written in the MS press release. What MS claimed was that its internal security was not broken (the external security obviously was) and the code didn't leak via two specific programs - Microsoft?s Shared Source Initiative and Government Security Program.
An FBI task force hunted today for a cyber-criminal who posted on the internet source code for Windows, the jewels of Microsoft's software empire.
It hunted today, huh? Did they ride on horses when hunting? Will they stop hunting tomorrow? BTW, what the hell is "cyber-criminal"? And since when copyright violation is a crime? And didn't that idiot know that Windows is the brand for an OS, thus it's not really plural, so it would be jewel, not jewels.
In jeopardy is Microsoft's near-monopoly on operating systems found on 90 per cent of the world's personal computers.
How exactly is the near-monopoly in jeopardy? And while we are trying to understand the sentence, is the near-monopoly found on 90% of computers or is it the monopoly on Windows (i.e. the OS on 90% of computers)?
"I can confirm that" the Northwest Cybercrime Task Force was investigating, FBI spokeswoman Robbie Burroughs said.
What? Confirm WHAT??? Or, the quotation marks moved by themselves, never mind...
"Microsoft source code is both copyrighted and protected as a trade secret," the company said in a statement posted on its website today.
At least he managed to copy-paste the quote... I can't understand what "Microsoft source code" is, though...
"As such, it is illegal to post it, make it available to others, download it or use it.
The quote continues, but the ending quotation marks are missing... As for the MS press release, I really like them saying that it is illegal to make the Windows source code available to others. What did they just do?
The posted program is part of the source codes, or blueprints, for Windows 2000 and Windows NT 4.0, according to the company.
Pluralisation again... Are the source codes similar to cheat codes in any way? The last time I checked it was code. And saying "or blueprints" sounds really stupid. Really. Nobody uses blueprints for software.
Counterfeiters have been trying to get their hands on Windows source code for years. So have computer activists who say that programs could be made to work better with Windows if the source code were public.
Oh, brilliant! I bet counterfeiters didn't knew what they were trying to do all that time. I though they were trying to duplicate CDs MS was openly selling in retail stores, sometimes cracking the copy-protection. Well, now that they got the source code they must be happy and probably will stop counterfeiting.
Microsoft said that its own security had not been breached by whomever did the posting, nor was it released by a series of companies and governments with whom it shares the source code for the purpose of building software to work with Windows.
What the fuck? Let me ponder the absurdity of this sentence for a second. The code neither came directly from MS machines, nor did it come from the series (what series?) of companies and governments who had the code? If I wasn't sure that the journalist is a total moron, I would presume he suspects universities or research institutes, the only remaining category, which was not vindicated.
In any case, Mi
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
The action of your president affect me every day but I have no influence over his election.
See my subject and figure out if it feels familiar.
Ehm, I'm affraid there is, in fact. I live in Slovakia (which is almost Russia for you American under-educated folks :> I guess) and a month ago my provider was in fact contacted by BayTSP, Inc. complaining that I have been downloading some films from Shareaza. The provider has contacted me and threatened to disconnect me if I don't stop. So I did. It was quite shock, because until then I would feel realy safe.
:).
On the other hand, we here in Slovakia are proud to be a better then Russia, even going to EU this year, you know. Probably BayTSP would be really ignored in Russia (or how about Iraq? try contacting your Iraqi friends
Yeah, but you can over analyze the media. Usually it's less than worthless.
h es _quote03.html
Check this out:
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speec
Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (I refer to it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.)
Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward--reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I'd point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all. But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn't. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.
Not sure if this has already been posted by someone else, but here are some interesting greps on the Win2k source code.
Actually you can fake you IP partially (at least in ethernet). Just pick IP belonging to same local subnet so that trafic gets routed to your subnet and then grab packets with that IP.
Actually, you cannot do that. BT is TCP. The machine with the IP you're borrowing would never allow a TCP handshake to complete. RST RST RST If you used an IP that isn't being used, a good ISP wouldn't allow you out as there is no DHCP/PPPoE "lease".
Unless...
In practice, it's good idea to wait till some machine is down and then use temporarily free IP. This only works 100% if you know exactly when machine/IP will be down (so it cannot see trafic you generated) and if you can change your card's ethernet address to be also correct. One could also scan constantly to check if rightful owner of IP has become online again but in ethernet everyone can see the scanning.
...that's what you were saying here. I'm not being dick, I just don't understand what you meant.
3cx.org - A truly bad website.