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.
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
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.
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)
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 ----
cough... cough... FUD...
:) and read the email they sent him. The email was sent from Microsoft, not from the FBI or any law enforcement entity.
I spoke with a gent on the same network reporting the same experience (could be the same guy
It's not FUD. The gent in question also mentioned that his torrent download jumped from about 100K/s to 600K/s at some point through the download, which would lead me to believe that somebody with fat pipes *cough*Microsoft*cough* jumped into the swarm, likely in order to start tracing IP addresses.
I do wonder a bit about that, however, because if Microsoft jumps into the torrent to start nabbing IP's, haven't they also contributed to the dissemination of the source code by participating in its distribution? I'd imagine that it's no more of a problem for them legally than it is to undercover police selling drugs in sting operations. I do wonder if it should be, however...especially considering that they're *not* a law enforcement agency.
Dan
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
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.