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 FBI really needs to crack down on this whole Internet thing before the terrorists get their hands on that source code. Good to see they're doing something about it.
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!
Unpretentious Sydney reviews by unqualified Sydney reviewers
Anyone that's a peer in the torrent has your IP address. All they have to do is connect to the torrent and start collecting IP addresses of any peer that sends a piece of the file.
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.
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?
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."
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.
Why would the FBI care unless the source code had all the secret gov't backdoors plainly visible? :)
Chris
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.
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
It was only about 5% of the source that got released so we'll only see about 20 backdoors.
>..is part of the source codes, or blueprints,..
or punch cards (just in case you still dont get it)
REWARD
Have you seen this code:
MOV AH,09h
Believed to be part of a larger gang of code, this fragment is guilty of initialising a register for potentially illegal or disruptive purposes, notably the dissemination of disturbing messages or misinformation. Older intelligence indicates that the code was often seen accompanied by its partner:
INT 21h
But now believed to be part of a larger organisation.
AT&ROFLMAO
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.
Revenue at 11. --- "What is your fascination with my forbidden closet of mystery?"
1888 Franklin St.
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
5% of 63000 is 3150.
:-)
(c.f. Bugfest! Win2000 has 63,000 defects!
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
I agree that it was wrong to release the source code without permission, but I disagree with you sueing the one who distributed it. If you have a problem with your computer's security and feel the need to sue someone, sue Microsoft. You'd lose though, you've already signed an agreement excusing them from practically everything. I have a feeling if the source code to my linux distribution was ilegally released (its not finished, and MY software isn't free until I say so) that the FBI wouldn't give a shit.
http://illhostit.com/ - Webhosting
If you want to be secure, you shouldn't be using software whose security depends solely on the secrecy of the source. it's know as "security through obscurity" and almost everyone agrees it doesn't work.
Even microsoft won't be so stupid as to rely on it.
What went wrong with the US law system? Microsoft is finally in compliance with their anti-trust regulations, opening up API's and stuff, and now the FBI is investigating that? ;-)
my other sig is a 500 page novel
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
Among other things, the zip contains the source code to Notepad (you always wanted that!) along with an intriguing bugcodes.txt file that explains a lot of bluescreen/stop errors in more detail than you'll find anywhere else.
G Kv54~o6A
E MG Kv54~o6A/windows_2000_source_code.zip
File: windows_2000_source_code.zip
Key: CHK@JANQuMJMYGNWPVWyfwBwyXPsgBwPAwI,LeWue01uUKoEM
Bytes: 213748207
CHK@JANQuMJMYGNWPVWyfwBwyXPsgBwPAwI,LeWue01uUKo
Of course if you don't have Freenet yet (what are you waiting for?) you'd do good to visit http://www.freenetproject.org.
ed2k://|file|MSDOS_6.0_Source_Code.zip|21107046|8F DE89245233B5F0501C6817BFF48C6C|/
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 main functions of law enforcment are revenge and the instillment of fear rather than prevention. they seem to be performing thier function quite well.
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
The bonus from this situation is clearly not the free code. It is that we actually get free coporate based entertainment. People would pay good money to see Microsoft cry.
Big it up for Captain X.
Intellectual property, eh!? What intellect? What property? Get over yourself MS.
NT4 (230 Mb)n fo_ha sh=66a26447f563c3dc2336de74ae37dc14d11dd8b9
n fo_ha sh=f03fc1e04869294d5644d3c8c5d0fb8f2d26aa59
http://torrent.spyderlake.com/download.php?i
W2K (208 Mb)
http://torrent.spyderlake.com/download.php?i
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...
If MS corporate net was really compromised, like BBC reported, the leaker should have posted it on download.microsoft.com.
If it were posted there ( like in DirectX9.1.zip or somesuch ), would they still have legal grounds to hassle the users who downloaded it ?
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
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?
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.
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.
For anyone who has access to the Windows 2000 source code, check out the following files:
. bm p. bmp
win2k/private/windows/shell/control/bitmaps/std
win2k/private/windows/shell/control/bitmaps/nt
TEH FUNNAY!!!!1
Or does it crack any of you up uncontrollably when someone says "source codes."
When I heard that some moron had stolen the source code I felt very upset for Bill Gates. That man has put his heart and soul into building up Microsoft in to the greatest company in America.
What that pervert did is downright un-American, and I hope that in the fullness of time he is ashamed of his actions.
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 ----
Coca Cola Formula
The same 'tools' can be used for legit purposes, like if you are the security admin of a company..
Its your JOB to make sure that you arent vunerable..
But, you have to convince the jury of that....
---- Booth was a patriot ----
True, but it was not developed as closed source and then made public over one night. Because that would not have been very smart, right...
All you need is a jury, and explain you were doing something LEGAL, that turned out to be illegal due to the actions out of your control.
..
( this is assuming her recipes were not restricted from re-distribution of course ).
It would be the same case if you went to a legit store ( like a pawn shop or antique store )..
and bought an item in good faith that anyone would assume was legally theirs to sell...that later turned out to be stolen
Sure, they take away the object, but you dont get arrested...
This isnt a matter of 'ignorance' of the law, its a matter of intent beyond your control.
That said, if you *kept* said mis-labeld file, then of course its minor to prove intent...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Open Source code is available for everyone. Only criminals can use the Windows code.
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
The Windows code on users' PCs is all compiled code.
Not anymore...
I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
According to BetaNews, a company called Mainsoft is to blame. They allege that Mainsoft had access to the code in order to develop their Visual MainWin tool giving developers the ability to write Linux and Unix apps from within Visual Studio.
...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!
There's nothing wrong with goto. You're just too influenced by Dijkstra's flamebait. Use it sometime... it's quite refreshing.
The more problems MS installations have, the higher the pressure for migrating away. The more systems migrated away, the higher heterogenity of the Net ecosystem, the higher overall resistance to platform-specific threats - and the higher pressure for compatible, standardized data-exchange formats; proprietary ones could then become a disadvantage instead of a lock-in advantage.
The computer world needs to be pushed into different dynamic-equilibrium mode. The sooner, the better.
DO NOT moderate the parent. Not up, not down, not sideways, nor in any way shape or form. If you mod the parent funny, it can be presumed that you have seen the files in question and have thus "illegally" accessed the leaked source code!
It is not outside the logic of reason to think that Microsoft, the FBI, or someone else may force Slashdot to give up the records of anyone who modded the parent post. We all know that Microsoft has some astroturfies around here. Please DO NOT fall victim to a virtual sting operation...
the source codes, or blueprints, Yuck! Please: Spokespersons from the FBI and people from the media - learn to say "code" not "codes". It's like the plural of sheep and hair is still sheep and hair. "codes" are encryption algorithms or something. And the source code for Windows is nothing like a blueprint. Source code is the actual thing we build - a blueprint is a guide for building the thing it describes. For software, the analogous thing to a blueprint would be something like a flowchart.
www.sjbaker.org
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
Don't download that and please spread the word to other forums: This is a fake!
Can be verified by a glimpse at the partially downloaded files: every part-file just consists of text lines saying this:
"Rar!Fake!Hahaha!"
A zillion times of course. So don't waste your time & bandwidth for that. If in doubt, download the first parts to see for yourselves...
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
Microsoft finally has something to say about this.
-I DDoSed your mom.
As I understood it. They (mainsoft, microsoft or whoever) published source code (not source codes but code!). Souce code is something that looks like:
... the compiler turns this source code into assembly language, something that looks like:
...the linker turns the assembly into:
while(lax_us_laws && sheep_like_users)
{
find_devices();
find_software();
secretly_report_back_to_redmond();
}
mov 0AH, 0x085a
inc 0AH
sub 0B
jmp 0x05a
01001110000010101000010101110101011010101010
So no, they didn't get pre-compiled code (pre-compiled code is assembly language software like the middle step above) so that is a lie (but like so many other things, journalists get very important technicals wrong, publish, and the clueless repeat what they read (and we all suffer).
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 !
A blueprint is a set of instructions one gives to builders to make a building or a ship. In that sense, source code is a blueprint and the builders happen to be the compiler and the linker or interpreter.
This is my sig.
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
Just a reminder to anybody out there that is doing any kind of development for anything, don't even look at the code because if you do and you are caught, any of your work from this point on can be considered property of Microsoft. If you don't think this would happen look at IBM and SCO. And I doubt any of you have enough money to take on Microsoft, even the DOJ failed, so what chance do you have.
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
It was always possible to do that. Just dump the exports of a .dll, make a new .dll with the same exports that merely hands them off to the old .dll.
.dll. This was all trivially doable before, although its harder now with the File Protection crap in 2k and newer.
Insert whatever code you want before and after handoff to the old
It still comes down to the same thing. If you are running a binary system that's not signed with a trusted key, you are vulnerable. Period. This is as true with Linux as it is Windows. Access to source doesn't change anything.
Besides, if you are running Windows, some terrorist plot to subvert your machine is the least of your problems. Trying to not get infected, 0wn3d, and bluescreened twice a day is a much larger concern. If you are running Windows, you clearly don't care about security anyway.
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
Wrong. They chose, in the wonderful free market that MS resides in, to buy Windows. I, as a non-windows user feel the brunt by having hundreds of viruses dumped through my DSL and into my mail program.
If this thing causes chaos, then the windows users are _part of the problem_.
The buck? Sure, that's stops at Microsoft, there's no denying that.
YAW.
Your head of state is a corrupt weasel, I hope you're happy.
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.
No, that isn't true. Under U.S. copyright law you own the copyright to something the minute it is created. If I write a song and never register it with the copyright office I still own the copyright and I can still sue over the unauthorized use of my work. Not placing a copyright notice makes it *difficult* to prove ownership but it doesn't make it impossible and it certainly doesn't mean it's now in the public domain.
Additionally, do you really think that Microsoft (or any company in a similar situation) wouldn't simply go in and *add* the copyright notices to their source? It's a trivial matter and who do you think law enforcement will believe: a multi-billion dollar company who says "it was there all the time" or somebody who stole their code and is trying to save themselves from an IP suit? One of the most important things anyone in this situation can do is NOT to underestimate Microsoft. Multimillion dollar companies have done so in the past and many of them are no longer around. How do you think the average hacker will fair?
Anthony Papillion
Advanced Data Concepts, Inc.
"Quality Custom Software and IT Services"
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.
"Any idea, anyone ?"
you wont fool us mr FBI agent!
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
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
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.