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 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.
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.
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
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
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.
'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
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)
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
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
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!
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
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
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 !
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
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
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
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.
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.
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