Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Warning Leaked Code Traders
An anonymous reader writes "Broadand Reports notes that Microsoft is now sending snail mail warnings to downloaders of the leaked source code. They're also apparently working in conjunction with several un-named peer to peer vendors to send out legal warnings to any users who search for the leaked code. The notice on Microsoft's website has been updated to reflect the new warnings."
[tin_foil_hat]
I think the title should have read "MS Warns Leaked Code TRAITORS" considering that the code probably got leaked from one of their own.
From the MS Notice page:
Customers running Windows XP Service Pack 1 or Windows Server 2003 who have installed all of the latest updates are not impacted
In other words: "Dear companies running on W2K, please pay for upgrades ASAP. We would like more money. Thanks."
[/tin_foil_hat]
Don't mess with Microsoft, they have the money and the power to track you down, even on Internet and through P2P networks. And they will, this is just an example and a warning.
I will never download the source code and you should better not try too. Anyway what's the point in seeing/having it?
I think people don't really understand what having windows 2000 SP1 source code spreading on internet really means. That's quite important and even if it's only part of the source code it's already enough for the first exploits to appear.
The author was kind enough to tell us about the first one, but I bet many others did find bugs and didn't report them because they are working on viruses and attacks using them.
Let's see what happens in the coming months. I'm already working on the switch from Windows 2003 Server to Linux in my company for this exact reason.
Iraq: war to save the U
http://www.sun.com/servers/entry/v20z/
is kazaa one of the vendors? is there anything they can do about emule or edonkey users?
;)
the latter seem to traffic especially in things like leaked source RARs, and since most of the central servers are overseas and operated independently (and 'overnet' seems truly peer to peer with no central servers), it would be tough to crack down on them, besides having a bunch of fake clients that harvest IPs. anyone know if they do this?
(i imagine the same concept would apply for bittorrent downloaders -- except BT relies on central tracking servers which would be comparatively easy to shut down.)
seems like a natural, uh, application, for the freenet project
ah well. it's kinda scary that even the largest/richest software co in the world can't stop the spread of their IP, and that it takes only one person.
-fren
"Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?"
Once its leaked on the Internet, you can't take it back. People WILL take a peek at it. If Microsoft really needs to be convinced, they should talk to Pam and Tommy :)
Dear Sir, Please, please, please don't look for more exploits in our code! We've got enough already to keep us busy for the next decade or so. Signed, Your pals at Microsoft.
Probably a package that weighs 5 pounds, doesn't open right, has about 2 sentences of actual use, and then crubmles while being read.
I don't try to be right, I just try to make people think
-cp-
President Bush to Liberate Alaska
how are they able to know who's downloading the files from p2p network?
is that you big bro?
Well, now that Win 2K is not "SAFE" anymore, please get ready to shell out money for Longhorn...
(pun intended)
Is the warning something like: "You need at least an eight way machine to compile it." ?
Why did they wait so long to let people know in a public way that this was !DUH! illegal? Were they waiting for people to download the source and then go RIAA-style on them?
Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther
I thought the thing to do nowadays was to sue the pants off downloaders. Is M$ trying to play good guy warning downloaders rather than suing them?
...don't question it!!!
Oh wait, it already is.
They're also apparently working in conjunction with several un-named peer to peer vendors to send out legal warnings to any users who search for the leaked code.
Oh my God, that's great.
Anyone want to suddenly start hopping on kazaa and posting spoofed search requests for "leaked windows 2000 code" which appear to be coming from the IP addresses of the White House, the Dennis Hastert re-election campaign, various randomly selected people, entire blocks inside of Time-Warner...
It could be like a p2p reverse honeypot.
Once a few thousand people start getting threatening legal notices from MS for something they didn't do, what happens next?
This has got to work even better than security through obscurity.
How did it leak?
Now do you understand why we need Freenet?
Does this mean that Windows is open source. Is it cool to use Windows yet?
But it was kinda buggy.
- - - If the sun is a star, why can't I see it at night?
So, I figure that it's in Microsoft's best interests to release the source-code, and claim that it's "leaked". The idea, is that this will offload some of the work from their QA department, as they can do a google search for "leaked microsoft source code", and see reviews, comments, and potential fixes.
Location Based Wi-Fi
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
This is just one more reason why Microsoft needs to open up the source for Windows. After all, what is it afraid of? There's nothing in there so secret that it needs protecting. I'm sure anything sensitive has already been patented anyway.
The real reason Microsoft wants to keep the source closed is because of all their shoddy programming! As we've already seen, this has opened up a whole can of security worms. Has anyone noticed the increase in new viruses lately?
Have you read the GNU Manifesto lately?
This is probably a good time to remind everyone that Freenet is making progress and is asking for donations.
While it may be illegal to steal source code that is privately held. I don't know that it is illegal to view it once it has been released. Perhaps someone has a more educated viewpoint. But this seems like a scare tactic without much legal standing.
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
Yep, the same way OJ looked for the "real killer": a mirror. Yeah, Bill, I'm talking to you!
I was wondering why when I tried compiling it, it stopped halfway through and I heard Madonna's voice scream, "What the fuck do you think you're doing?"
I also reply below your current threshold.
Why should they even bother. If they can identify the people to send them mail, then those people are not smart enough to do any harm. The smart/dangerous ones will get the code anonymously. And they wouldn't be afraid of Microsoft 'getting' them.
worms are everywhere...
Dear Peer-to-Peer user,
Please do not download our source code or we will be forced to sue you. We are not kidding, we will sue you. Seriously, we'll sue...
Sincerly,
Bill Gates
Reply
Dear Bill.
Please stop poluting the internet with your crappy source. Every time I search for porn now, I get coppies of some crappy pile of shit called winedows or something. Furthermore, don't even talk to me about frivilous litigation bub. I wrote that book.
Besides, your source leak is stealing my valuable press. How am I supposed to dump my stock if I can't pump it first.
P.S. Thanks for the license fees.
Yours in infamy,
Darl.
I am become Troll, destroyer of threads
Now that the source is out there, I wonder how long it will take for anonymous hackers to start submitting fixes to M$ for problems in the code that havent been detected yet. How long until independent
patches are available to make it more secure from Big Brother, and more stable.
Is this the beginning of the Kazaa-Lite-ing of windows?
... or just using the P2P networks, PeerGuardian can help. I reject about 250 requests per day on the Emule network from tracking companies. Here's about 40 minutes worth:
Connection Rejected: 12.222.39.72 - Communications Resources PGIPDB (02-19-2004 @ 17:49:19)
Connection Rejected: 12.222.39.72 - Communications Resources PGIPDB (02-19-2004 @ 17:50:00)
Connection Rejected: 12.222.39.72 - Communications Resources PGIPDB (02-19-2004 @ 17:50:42)
Connection Rejected: 12.222.39.72 - Communications Resources PGIPDB (02-19-2004 @ 17:56:11)
Connection Rejected: 12.222.39.72 - Communications Resources PGIPDB (02-19-2004 @ 17:56:55)
Connection Rejected: 12.222.39.72 - Communications Resources PGIPDB (02-19-2004 @ 17:57:37)
Connection Rejected: 12.222.39.72 - Communications Resources PGIPDB (02-19-2004 @ 17:59:00)
Connection Rejected: 12.222.39.72 - Communications Resources PGIPDB (02-19-2004 @ 17:59:44)
Connection Rejected: 12.222.39.72 - Communications Resources PGIPDB (02-19-2004 @ 18:00:26)
Connection Rejected: 12.222.39.72 - Communications Resources PGIPDB (02-19-2004 @ 18:08:53)
Connection Rejected: 12.222.39.72 - Communications Resources PGIPDB (02-19-2004 @ 18:09:35)
Connection Rejected: 12.222.39.72 - Communications Resources PGIPDB (02-19-2004 @ 18:10:16)
Connection Rejected: 12.222.39.72 - Communications Resources PGIPDB (02-19-2004 @ 18:18:51)
Connection Rejected: 12.222.39.72 - Communications Resources PGIPDB (02-19-2004 @ 18:19:34)
Connection Rejected: 12.222.39.72 - Communications Resources PGIPDB (02-19-2004 @ 18:20:14)
Connection Rejected: 12.222.39.72 - Communications Resources PGIPDB (02-19-2004 @ 18:28:40)
Connection Rejected: 12.222.39.72 - Communications Resources PGIPDB (02-19-2004 @ 18:29:24)
Connection Rejected: 12.222.39.72 - Communications Resources PGIPDB (02-19-2004 @ 18:30:06)
You can get it from Methlabs.org. Windows only as far as I know.
What will happen when the Linux project servers for the version you use get breached. Or what if there are exploits that can't be fixed immediatly?
Switching off of Windows sounds great to me, as I really dislike using it, but your reasoning sounds a bit flawed. If it's because the software's buggy and prone to exploitation, great. But if it's just because some code got leaked.. and OSS software generally has all the code available all the time.. then your reasoning sounds a little flawed.
Any software will have flaws. It's inevitable. Knee jerk reactions too those flaws generally aren't a good idea though.
You're reading Slashdot. Of course you like Linux and pc hardware
From the M$ web site: "Microsoft source code is both copyrighted and protected as a trade secret."
Got that one half right:
1) yup it's copyrighted and you can't have the code.
(so far so good)
2) there are no legal protections for "trade secrets" --- it means nothing that the "trade secrets" were leaked other than it's a violation of 1)
I must have found one of these warnings - when I downloaded "Windows_source_code.zip", all it contained was a
"If you think you have things under control, you're not going fast enough." --Mario Andretti
Doesn't MS realize that with this code out on the net it allows for it to be debugged?
This sig no verb.
Seeing that MS is sending out warning to those downloaders, it already knew who they are, thus it could be just a warning to those downloaders that if any exploits were out, they will be the first to be investigated.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
Proprietary software only hides bug so I think microsoft is having a favor done by having the source code leaked. I mean it just forces them to fix all the bugs and security holes that people are going to find because of it. And noting microsoft's previous performance they should be paying people to find these bugs rather than bring up lawsuits. Proprietary software is just that proprietary which means while they're the only ones working on it they're also the only one NOT fixing bugs in it.
-This sig has been discontinued after a sudden realization.
On Monday, February 16, Microsoft began investigating a reported exploit on versions of Internet Explorer allegedly discovered by an individual studying the leaked source code. This exploit is a known issue that Microsoft had discovered internally and addressed with the latest release of Internet Explorer -- Internet Explorer 6.0 Service Pack 1.
Um, don't usually like to argue semantics, but what was discovered was a security vulnerability (bug) in the code, not an "exploit".
Devising and revealing a method to take advantage of this problem (a virus, worm, bitmap) is an "exploit", right?
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
Trying to track down people who simply search for the code without necessarily downloading it? Next week's /. take on this story will be "Bill Gates Hires Genovese Mafioso to break 1 bone per meg of source code downloaded".
I think MS is more pissed that exploits that would have eventually been located somewhere down the pike will come to fruition much earlier, giving Microsoft 10 bad security flaw discoveries a month instead of their usual 2-3.
So download from Freenet.
Grow up MS we don't want your tripe.
To sum up the article:
...taking a leak!
Microsoft can now sue you for...
<rimshot/>
.sig wanted. Inquire within.
No, not the Doom II port. I'm assuming this follows along the lines of a Microsoft PR implementation. It can't be seen sitting idly as the code gets swapped around. The 250K bounty trick has already been done, and the RIAA seems to be doing well on the "threaten/sue fileswappers" thing so why not jump in?
We've already come to the agreement that this code shouldn't be seen by anyone who is currently contributing or even could possibly in the future contribute to OSS.
The only thing MS stands to lose here is an influx of possible exploits caused by bad code. It's not the full source so it's not like it'll compile to something useful (i.e. piracy).
Maybe they SHOULD go after these folks...but as BGates said recently, hackers are good for MS software because hackers test/break systems, thus making MS improve. Which PR spin will win this one out?
For those of you still looking for the leaked source code here it is:
#include "windows.h"
#include "system_errors.h"
#include "stdlib.h"
#include "msdos_bugs.h"
char make_prog_look_big[1600000];
main()
{
if (detect_OS2())
freeze();
if (detect_cache())
disable_cache();
if (fast_cpu())
set_wait_states(lots);
set_mouse(speed, very_slow);
set_mouse(action, jumpy);
set_mouse(reaction, sometimes);
set_icons(UGLY);
print("Welcome to Windoze 3.11111");
if (system_ok())
crash(to_dos_prompt);
else
system_memory = open("a:\swp0001.swp", O_CREATE);
while(1) {
sleep(5);
get_user_input();
sleep(5);
act_on_user_input();
sleep(5);
if (rand() < 0.9)
crash(complete_system);
}
return(unrecoverable_system);
}
War isn't about who's right. It's about who's left.
I dare ya!
The first companys named for inspection are google, sony playstation and Mac OS X.
I used to work for MacOSX, but they fired me. Now I work for Playstation.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
to post the Microsoft code as a reply to this challenge.
Thanks in advance and remember to Deport The Liars To The War Crimes Court
Regards,
Kilgore Trout
I just don't get it. No security breach. Not related to the SSI, nor GSP. Then how did it leak???? Psychics?
Bite my shiny metal... oops... Nevermind!
... because they put up an archive called "kernel-source-2.6.3.tar.bz2"
No one actually checked what it contained but blindly assumed it was windows. Heh. Funny world.
chris at darkrock dot co dot uk
http colon slash slash www dot darkrock dot co dot uk
A: Why oh why did I register with Insta-Trace?!?
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Holy crap, Microsoft can find your physical mailing address if you download their source code...
Does that mean those people I laughed at in high school for circulating that thing about Bill Gates sending you $100 for forwarding this email were RIGHT?!
Damn, now I wish I'd been stupid enough to send that thing on - I could use an extra hundred bucks.
In post-9/11 America, the CIA interrogates YOU!
It had a EULA shrinkwrapped to it that said "Upon opening this letter I am hereby agreeing to..." so I just tossed it in the trash. I guess I'll wait till one of the letters gets leaked online, then I can just download it.
A better question is why would people help a billion dollar company debug it's code for free?
That's presuming that MS will accept this help.
BTW doesn't Microsoft already make it's source code available to third parties? Were's the results?
Does it mean that I am doing something ILLEGAL, by reading something that I haven't bought?
Yes, you are! Bookstores are for buying not browsing. Authors lose money everytime you use your eyes without paying for it! If you want to browse, go to the damn library you socialist!
i got one through my university about it through downloading it through bittorrent. They claimed i was distributing it and demanded they give up where i got it from as well as delete it and stop distributing. I explained i wasnt distributing it and they had no proof that i was only that i was connected to the bittorrent tracker. Oh well
For simply checking if the file is offered, with no proof that a download was ever initiated?
That tempts me to go searching on Kazaa just to draw it in, and then sue the bastards for harassment.
e.g. see this article or search for your own...
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Download these two via eDonkey:
8 20 7|34bb9f3a3e8d3e0c4490a96ec30b9f3c|/
1 48 3|afcb4b1fd05ed574e2ee77618222621d|/
(Remove the spaces in the links.)
ed2k://|file|windows_2000_source_code.zip|21374
And:
ed2k://|file|windows_nt_4_source_code.zip|24113
The code is out, it wont come back.
There are hundreds and hundreds of sources in emule, and thousands have been downloading (5k requests the last 5 days). Not to mention irc, ftps, kazaa , winmx and the other stuff.
As an educated guess i would say that at least 50-100.000 people have the source currently on their harddisc.
Whoever wants it now has it....
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
We should respect MS copyrights just as we expect MS to respect GPL. Sure MS may be dirty, but we are better than them.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
Lets do what we did for DeCSS and print it out on T-Shirts, and mugs, and write haikus...
Hmm, my font only goes down to 1pt....
Just pondering here, as I don't run a huge software company myself, but shouldn't companies this size kinda expect that at some point, for any of the dozens of reasons, that at least some of their code will be leaked? Especially MS. They're huge, there has had to have been dozens or hundreds real attempts at infiltration or breaking in and getting that stuff.
There's really not much you can do, but at least minimize some damage. Maybe MS will serve as an example. Everyone's going off on the cursing in the comments. Well, don't curse in the comments. It's not a big deal overall but it does seem to affecting the view of the programmers there.
As said there's not much you can do about the main damage, but a couple of the things we see going on here could be avoided or minimized.
J
If the leaked source code reveals any more Windows security issues, I'll just wait until Microsoft Corporation emails me an .EXE file patch.
;)
For the reasons in the other replies. Parent needs to replace the foil in his hat.
If peoples' ability to disseminate information serves as a message to corporations that their attempts to turn the US into a police state won't work, then I can live with that.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Well my friend Sweet Jay took me to that video arcade in town, right? And they don't speak English there, so Jay got into a fight and he's all 'hey quit hasslin' me cuz' I don't speak French' or whatever, and then the guy said something in Paris talk, and I'm like, 'just back off!' And they're all 'get out!' and we're like, 'make me!' It was cool!
The thing is: this is NOT Bill Gates's happening, and that's what's freaking him out.
If I search on a P2P network for windows source and download it just to look at it, sorry, but that's not illegal.
How is it not illegal? Well, someone posted a few days ago snippets of code from IE5 that showed how the buffer overflow exploit for images worked.
That post was not illegal since it was used for "educational" purposes (showing us where and how the exploit worked).
Good luck trying to sue, MS... since, after all, that's all you know how to do!
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
Barn Door
Close
Oh wait.....
- - - - - - - - - - -
I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
There have been many security comparisons between Linux and Windows, and the conclusions have always been mixed. One reason is because of the scope of the included software - because it's "free" Linux distributions usually include the kitchen sink, so there are more packages to count security exposures in. Another reason is multiple counting - one exposure across multiple distributions. Yet another factor not well estimated has been the severity of the exposures.
But these security exposures have all been in an environment where Linux source was generally available for inspection, and Windows source wasn't. A corollary of this is that most of the Linux exposures have been proactively reported, prior to being exploited. With Windows that's not so clear.
In the future, there's not reason to expect Linux security exposures to change significantly, except through becoming a bigger target because of increased usage. But the fundamentals of bugs, bug reporting, bug fixing, and security haven't changed.
The future story for Windows is different now, because some source has become available. *Maybe* some people will begin proactive security work on the source, and *maybe* Microsoft will roll that work into fixes. But for certain, others wearing differnt color hats will be examining that code for security exposures, too.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
That MS had contacted them about my IP address. Downloaded it Sat night, removed it less than 24 hrs later on Sun (I used EMule), next day the ISP phoned saying MS asked them for my details as I was sharing the source. ISP said they would not give them out without a court order.
Im in UK. I havent seen/heard of anyone else getting this (Happend to me on monday) suprised it took till today for it to be brought to light, must admit it makes me somewhat relived to see that their just warning about it, must say I was really $hitting myself at one point. Hell I dont even know C/C++ I was just curious to take a look.
Thus, Microsoft has no choice but to make the best effort it can to track and notify people who have acquired its source code without a license. If they didn't, they risk a court case where a defendent could say that Microsoft failed to protect and enforce thier copyright, and the court would have a very good chance of saying the material had thus moved into the public domain.
This has happened in the past, and will again. Microsoft isn't chasing anyone down to prosecute them, it's unlikely they've been monetarily impacted by any single downloader, but they must vigorously defend their copyright and trade secrets, or they lose them.
No, but if you made yourself a copy (full or partial) to take home, it would be.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Is it really illegal to download it? Since when is it illegal to read stuff you find floating around, as long at is isn't classified by the government?
It's not as if you're stealing it when you read it, the people that leaked it are to blame.
warning them that playing peek-a-boo with the four year old code is a violation of the law.
IANAL, but I'm not sure this is illegal. I don't think receiving copyrighted work is illegal, although distributing without license is. I also don't know how simply reading the code could be a copyright violation.
Someone help me out on what laws could be violated by downloading and looking. Although I have no interest in seeing it myself, I'd like to know the legal angles.
That's right MS bring 'em on!!! I live in Canada and I dowloaded the code so sue my pants off all you like. kthxby
I mean, seriously, who wants to snoop on Microsofts buggy, crappy pile-of-fetid-garbage code anyway? Apart from crackers, I guess... But then again, why become the target of crackers when there are *light-weight*, *working*, *rock-stable* O/S alteratives out there? And FYI: I'm not talking about MacOS8. /Who cares?
After I get my network connection killed
X(7): A program for managing terminal windows. See also screen(1).
Thats ok, I have my copy already and it's not in my download directory for my P2P apps :)
From the article; "Microsoft source code is both copyrighted and protected as a trade secret."
IANAL, but I thought that things could not be both copyrighted and a trade secret since copyrighted things enter the public domain when the copyright expires. Of course with the way legislation is going these days, the copyright may never expire...
No one here minds if you break the law as long as you don't personally profit from it.
We go have a postal service and if your friends live near you could burn it to cd and then give it them and so forth, how is that going to be traced unless you were being watched beforehand? MS may be smart but i'm sure paranoid hackers are alread one step ahead and thought about this.
Jonathanjk.com
ZIG HIAL HEIR GATES!!!!
Anyone know how they can get snail mail from p2p file sharing?
Anyone?
I still haven't been able to download it... please help!
Print the source code and hang it to your wall. And every morning, before you go to work, make a deep promise not to write that kind of horrible crap! (Yes it's awful)
Heh heh...I see anti-MS people plotting and planning new ways to make Microsoft spend lots of money on things other than business development/eating other companies. "Hmmm...let's have everyone we know download the source code. Then MS will have to pay for paper, envelopes, postage, time...that'll surely put 'em under!"
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
...because everyone uses their real email address when they sign up for p2p programs.
-- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
Gates: "Interesting Steve... What's this idea?"
Ballmer: "Well, suppose we leaked the 2K and NT4 sources on the Internet."
Gates: "I'm not sure I follow."
Ballmer: "Think about it. We've got stagnating revenue streams from companies who are still using NT4 and 2000. We've got people continually hacking our software. Are you seeing the connection here?"
Gates: "Sure, I get you: release the source code, so hackers can analyze it to find all the holes. We get free QA, and in the meantime, we can pressure our customers to upgrade to XP, because it's not vulnerable to these source code attacks. Thus, getting more money for us, from people who wouldn't have otherwise upgraded. Brilliant!"
Ballmer: "You're catching on. And hey, I just thought of an extra bonus! We can track down people who actually download the source code and sue them. That way, we get another auxiliary revenue stream from court, make ourselves look good by appearing to 'fight hackers,' and strengthen the hostile attitudes held toward open source software by linking them to our stolen source code! Another inch closer to having a lock-hold on the Supreme Court when they finally make the big decisions about the validity of intellectual property!"
Gates: "Why, this could have a favorable impact on the outcome of the SCO case, could it not?"
Ballmer: "Sure. Those stupid Linux fanboys and their 'take over the world' nonsense. They don't understand who they're playing ball with."
Microsoft says that it working with the FBI. How many DIY programmers could ever claim that they were getting help from the FBI to track down people who had pirated their software? This is an example of how intellectual property only exists to benefit the rich and powerful who can get the authorities to do their policing for them. Microsoft has the FBI. I guess the rest of us would have to resort to rent-a-cops and DIY cease-and-desist letters.
Hello Criminal,
..yes this work rather than the rigth act of rewriting the entier windwos code base to secure it..alright billy goat gates!
Will you please read this new warning form us telling you to sotp doing illegal acts..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
Anyone actually have a scan of the letter?
From the statement at Microsoft's Web Site:
Subsequent investigation has shown this was not the result of any breach of Microsoft's corporate network or internal security, nor is it related to Microsoft's Shared Source Initiative or its Government Security Program, which enable our customers and partners, as well as governments, to legally access Microsoft source code.
Now, I may be reading this wrong, but if it wasnt due to any sort of breach of Microsoft's corporate network, and no one walked out of Redmond with a cd (internal security breach) and did not come from any Shared Source members, and didnt come from any Government Security Program members (which includes MS customers, partners and governments) then where exactly did it come from?
I could be mistaken, but I was under the impression that the Windows source code was not available to anyone outside of a few select groups... I mean, it had to come from SOMEWHERE, and this statement looks like they are saying tha it came from some mysterious source...
Maybe someone copied it via video camera a la Antitrust.
"Our funds have never taken part in toxic or death spiral convertible financings of any sort" -BayStar's managing partne
It looks like they have a fairly extensive IP block list. It shouldn't be too hard to get this list to work w/ IPtables.
My question -- will IPtables run "okay" with a few thousand block rules?
Evolution: love it or leave it
Does anyone know if the alleged NSA backdoor or the "Netscape engineers are weenies!" key are still in the code?
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I posted details over here earlier. Someone can copy it in-line here for karma. I've got work to do atm
I don't remember this being in the news?
here you go
By the way I submitted this as news, but
it wasn't picked up, so maybe it's old news?
pb.
Here is some more code:
/* Microsoft Network Connectivity library */ /* For the court of law */
/* Standard Call, in
/* Delay */
/* in process.h */
/* Now
Subject: *** TOP SECRET MICROSOFT CODE ***
Project: Version - Windows 98
Microsoft marketing strategy (MARKET.EXE):
#include
#include
#include  ;
#include
#define say(x) lie(x)
#define computeruser ALL_WANT_TO_BUY_OUR_BUGWARE
#define next_year soon
#define the_product_is_ready_to_ship another_beta_version
void main()
{if (latest_window_version>one_month_old)
{if (there_are_still_bugs)
market(bugfix);
if (sales_drop_below_certain_point)
raise(RUMOURS_ABOUT_A_NEW_BUGLESS_VERSION);
  ; (while(everyone_chats_about_new_version)
make_false_promise(it_will_be_multitasking);
lie.h */
if (rumours_grow_wilder)
make_false_promise(it_will_be_plug_n_play);
  ; if (rumours_grow_even_wilder)
market_time=ripe;
say("It will be ready in one month);
order(programmers, stop_fixing_bugs_in_old_version);
order(programmers, start_brainstorm_about_new_version);
order(marketingstaff, permission_to_spread_nonsense);
vapourware=TRUE;
break;
switch (nasty_questions_of_the_worldpress)
case WHEN_WILL_IT_BE_READY:
say("It will be ready in", today+30_days," we're just testing");
break;
case WILL_THIS_PLUG_AND_PLAY_THING_WORK:
say("Yes it will work");
ask(programmers, why_does_it_not_work);
pretend(there_is_no_problem);
break;
case WHAT_ARE_MINIMAL_HARDWARE_REQUIREMENTS:
say("It will run on a 8086 with lightning speed due to"
" the 32 bits architecture");
inform(INTEL, "Pentium sales will rise skyhigh");
inform(SAMSUNG, "Start a new memorychip plant"
"'cos all those customers will need at least 32 megs");
inform(QUANTUM, "Thanks to our fatware your sales will triple");
get_big_bonus(INTEL, SAMSUNG, QUANTUM);
break;
case DOES_MICROSOFT_GET_TOO_MUCH_INFLUENCE:
say("Oh no, we are just here to make a better world for
everyone");
register(journalist, Big_Bill_Book);
when(time_is_ripe)
arrest(journalist);
brainwash(journalist);
when(journalist_says_windows95_is_bugfree)
  ; order(journalist, "write a nice objective article");
release (journalist);
break;
while (vapourware)
introduction_date++;
if (no_one_believes_anymore_there_will_be_a_release)
break;
say("It will be ready in",today+ONE_MONTH);
release(beta_version)
while (everyone_is_dumb_enough_to_buy_our_bugware)
&nbs p; bills_bank_account += 150*megabucks;
release(new_and_even_better_beta_version);
introduce(more_memory_requirements);
if (customers_report_installation_problems)
say("that is a hardware problem, not a software problem");
if (smart_customer_says_but_you_promised_plug_and_pla y)
ignore(customer);
order(microsoft_intelligence_agency, "Keep an eye on this
bastard");
if ( bills_bank_account>skyhigh && marriage>two_years )
divorce(woman_that_was_beatifull_when_I_married_he r);
wave(dollars, at_lusty_chicks);
marry(young_blond_virgin_with_big_boobies);
  ; devirginize(young_blond_virgin_with_big_boobies);
if (boobies_start_to_hang)
dump(young_blond_virgin_with_big_boobies);
&nbs p; if (there_is_another_company)
steal(their_ideas);
accuse(compagny, stealing_our_ideas);
hire(a_lot_of_lawyers);
wait(until_other_company_cannot_afford_another_law suit);
buy_out(other_company);
War isn't about who's right. It's about who's left.
Well, I'm seeking to possess ... I will eventually, maybe, download the source code...but I'm waiting for MS to communicate with me first.
Karma: Very Very Very Very Bad
And if I did perhaps want to take a peek at the source code, are any of the newsgroups hosting it right now?
I'm genuinely curious what the MS code looks like. Is it sloppy, or neat? Is it well commented? Are big chunks commented out?
On a side note... Would it be fairly safe to download from a newsgroup? Obviously with a P2P app, they can track your IP, but isn't it quite a bit harder to get records of who downloaded from a newsgroup?
I got two calls yesterday from my on-campus network administrator's office asking to speak to my room mate. This is odd because I believe he downloaded it through a DC++ connection, as he seems to avoid bittorrent for some reason. All they asked was that he removed the source from his computer, I don't think there were any other consequences. Anyone else have a similar experience?
I should not talk so much about myself if there were anybody else whom I knew as well. -Henry David Thoreau
...that the leak didn't come from a breach in security at either their network or the networks of any corporate or government partner. In short, it didn't come from anyone who has the source. Right.
They are also still toeing the line that it was code from NT and 2000. Conveniently omitting XP and Server 2003 from the list. Aren't those OSes built on the same codebase? Isn'y it possible that they are also potentially affected? Wouldn't want to scare people with our latest OSes, now would we? And for those that haven't upgraded (most businesses?), upgrading now looks safer than not.
Also of note in the release is that not just IE 5.5 and older are succeptable to the expoloit that was released, but non-SP1 IE6 as well.
For all the people here talking smack about Microsoft, just consider the opposite situation: imagine some GPL code was found to be in Microsoft's code. You'd all be screaming for the GPL to be enforced (and the bedrock of the GPL is copyright law).
So STFU and listen to Microsoft for once, they are absolutely correct to be defending their copyrighted work as hard as they can. As much as anyone here who has copyrighted code (like me) and releases it under the GPL should be prepared to fight to defend that copyright from infringement.
And to those suggesting that we *need* Freenet to protect ourselves from Microsoft so that we can freely swap their copyrighted code: STFU. Stop inciting people to break the law. Without laws like copyright to protect us you get anarchy, and you do not want that.
John.
What does concern me is how MS is running after those who are obtaining the leaked code. Is an FBI group standing over every P2P system, and then providing user information to MS? Please! Or is the media running multiple reports on behalf of MS, about those receiving warnings, while in fact this entire affair is a media stunt?
... freenet.
"Microsoft source code is [...]protected as a trade secret."
I never met anyone who could keep a secret forever.
--
Tsiangkun
I can't imagine how difficult this must be for Microsoft to do.
...
Step 1: Snoop on P2P traffic for IP's and search queries... it's clear text, so no real hassle.
Step 2: Contact ISPs whose netblock includes each IP in question for the home address of the perpetrator.
Step 3:
This is the Internet. You can say "fuck" here. - AC
Yeah, right.... then, why, my fellow capitalist, do they have a coffee shop and comfy chairs at B&N?
Yes, you are.
If you actively search for car parts that are known to come from a chop shop, you are very much guilty of breaking the law. As the source code was made public against agreements (read illegally), this falls under the same vein.
No, I wouldn't feel OK with that. But whoever ends up with the stolen part is not responsible for the theft.
Au contraire... The person receiving the stolen part is creating a market for stolen goods; thus, a motive to steal in the first place... If there was no market for stolen goods, the chop shop would not be a sustainable operation. No chop shop = less incentive to steal vehicle... That is why receiving stolen goods is a crime in this country.
I own a bought and paid for copy of NT4, 2K, XP, etc., so in a roundabout sort of way the source code is just another copy of what I already have. Ok, so it's in a slightly different form, but why is having WinSock source any different to having the compiled version? Providing I make no commercial or nefarious use of the source, I don't see a problem...
This sentence no verb.
[joke]...a half-cracked CPU, some faulty memory and a HDD getting bad sectors I can run it on. They deserve eachother[/joke]
Actually, I run Win2k on my machine here, and 1) linux router, 2) firewall, 3) anti-virus is catching pretty much all. Once the big rush of exploits due to this leak is over, I hope it'll secure enough to be a machine for many years to come, hopefully until Linux is ready to take over. I'm using the server in the corner with a Windows X server, but it's not *quite* there yet.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
1) Since when is searching for something illegal? This is about as shaky as when undercover cops get people for "Attempted Possesion of a Controlled Substance".
2)A lot of people, myself included, have zero interest in the source code. This stems from both the development standpoint ("tainting" code) and from the general yawn factor. Wow, now you can really tell how patchy and hacked together some of the code is. IIRC, the code does not compile in to anything usable. The source is out there, many people, myself included, will have to mop up after the consequences of this leak. Security through obscurity does not work if you remove the obscurity part.
I hate sigs.
That said, responding to Microsoft in any way, even to say you have no idea what they are talking about, can be used as an admission of guilt. If you're really worried, get a lawyer, but DON'T reply to jkweston. In the U.S. (thanks to Verizon), MS would actually have to FILE a John Doe suit to unmask you (assuming your ISP doesn't suck balls). Even Microsoft isn't likely to spend the money and bad PR that would be involved in suing the thousands of people who are probably going after the source code.
If I wanted it, I'd wait for the Usenet post, myself (though newzbin and others making Usenet searchable are going to be its downfall, but I digress.)
Is interesting discussion not permitted here? I suppose if you had mod points and hadn't posted here, you'd smack me down with your wagging-finger groupthink.
nope, IPtables will probably crap out. Use NF-HIPAC which is basically a binary tree table instead of a linear one. I use it to classify everything going through my box as either local campus, Internet2, or general internet. I have around 5000 matches and it works great. Also the perl module NetAddr::IP and it's function NetAddr::IP::compactref is your friend; it takes a bunch of IP/masks and simplifies them down. It simplified my 9000 Inet2 networks down to 5000.
why Microsoft isn't so rabid about stopping the spread of Windows XP and 2000 ISOs on filesharing services...
-Jem
Trying to stop the source code is like throwing $20 bills from a manhattan balconey, and going down and trying to collect them all back.
Theres a great deal of ill feeling towards Microsoft, thanks to their annoying crashing OS, and anyone threatened with a lawsuit will be actually determined to send out the source code anonymously.
What I'm extremely interested in, is if someone has successfully compiled the code and tested it. I'm interested in knowing what parts of windows the code is from. Hopefully we get the kernel + binary execution segments so WINE is developed as well as SAMBA. I think as soon as we can run win32 binaries properly on Linux, along with at least directx8, linux will be a MUCH bigger competitor of both Microsoft and Apple.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
I don't have their code, nor do I want it. But I realize that even if every single Linux user/GPL supporter refused to look at it or download it, it would still spread like wildfire. People download stuff like this just to say that they have it. I have a friend who is somewhat of a "collector" of things like this. He has no programming background whatsoever, he just wants to say that he has it. (ironically, he is actually in school getting a law degree with a concentration in Intellectual Property)
The cat-genie is out of the bag-bottle.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
why, my fellow capitalist, do they have a coffee shop and comfy chairs at B&N?
So that one can fondle themselves while staring at sweaty, pasty Linux users buying their computer books.
The more public it is, the less it can be considered a trade secret. Remember DeCSS on all those t-shirts?
what an irony, 18years and 16days ago, Bill Gates wrote this letter. History repeats itself. mod me down redundant.
***
AN OPEN LETTER TO HOBBYISTS
By William Henry Gates III
February 3, 1976
An Open Letter to Hobbyists
To me, the most critical thing in the hobby market right now is the lack of good software courses, books and software itself. Without good software and an owner who understands programming, a hobby computer is wasted. Will quality software be written for the hobby market?
Almost a year ago, Paul Allen and myself, expecting the hobby market to expand, hired Monte Davidoff and developed Altair BASIC. Though the initial work took only two months, the three of us have spent most of the last year documenting, improving and adding features to BASIC. Now we have 4K, 8K, EXTENDED, ROM and DISK BASIC. The value of the computer time we have used exceeds $40,000.
The feedback we have gotten from the hundreds of people who say they are using BASIC has all been positive. Two surprising things are apparent, however, 1) Most of these "users" never bought BASIC (less than 10% of all Altair owners have bought BASIC), and 2) The amount of royalties we have received from sales to hobbyists makes the time spent on Altair BASIC worth less than $2 an hour.
Why is this? As the majority of hobbyists must be aware, most of you steal your software. Hardware must be paid for, but software is something to share. Who cares if the people who worked on it get paid?
Is this fair? One thing you don't do by stealing software is get back at MITS for some problem you may have had. MITS doesn't make money selling software. The royalty paid to us, the manual, the tape and the overhead make it a break-even operation. One thing you do do is prevent good software from being written. Who can afford to do professional work for nothing? What hobbyist can put 3-man years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free? The fact is, no one besides us has invested a lot of money in hobby software. We have written 6800 BASIC, and are writing 8080 APL and 6800 APL, but there is very little incentive to make this software available to hobbyists. Most directly, the thing you do is theft.
What about the guys who re-sell Altair BASIC, aren't they making money on hobby software? Yes, but those who have been reported to us may lose in the end. They are the ones who give hobbyists a bad name, and should be kicked out of any club meeting they show up at.
I would appreciate letters from any one who wants to pay up, or has a suggestion or comment. Just write to me at 1180 Alvarado SE, #114, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87108. Nothing would please me more than being able to hire ten programmers and deluge the hobby market with good software.
Bill Gates
General Partner, Micro-Soft
How exactly does a source code leak occur, except in the event of a breach of internal security? AFAIK, the only way a leak can occur without it being a security breach is if an individual is authorized to leak it. Then it is not a breach, but a directed action.
What am I missing here?
I'm a bit "green" here; however, my skepticism overpowers my ignorance:
And I ask, "WHICH LAW?"; that is, what law would I be breaking if I do download this leaked source code?
Is it only a copyright violation, exactly akin to downloading Pirates of the Caribbean (except for the thugs are better-armed...)?
Would I somehow be found guilty of DMCA violation? I doubt "compilation is an effective encryption process" would fly in court.
Unless I'm wrong (and please correct me if I am!), the only law being broken here is that of copyright.
And, is it not true that only the _unauthorised distributor_ of the copyrighted material is punishable? It seems to me that these letters from M$ are probably like "Do not redistribute what you've already got, or we'll _____."
Unless someone explains otherwise, I'm going to suppose that it's effectively just fine to download the source, as long as I don't share it myself. Of course, this is only an academic exercise to me as I'm WHOLLY uninterested in that particular source code. If I were, I'd probably suggest ++caution.
How does searching for the source could incriminate you in any ways? Does looking for a maternity book makes me pregnant?
This is totally insecure, but very convenient.
Trust no one!
BS. You have been listening far too much RIAA / MPAA propaganda.
It depends very much in which jurisdiction you live in. If your country permits private copying, you are fine, because downloading means in practice that you are just making one (private) copy of the work to your hard disk (of course if you share it, it's totally different thing).
In certain countries there are no notion of private copying or the the source has to be the original work in order to be legal. If you happen to live in one these countries (Denmark for example), only then you are SOL.
If the local state-run university my sons attends is any indication, everybody who wants a copy ALREADY has it!!
My son says that every computer science student he knows already has downloaded a copy and that students are eagerly trading copies among themselves!
You mean like this?
Reported and patched at the same time?
I thought it took 200 days to fix a serious problem.
IMO it's pretty understandable if by this time people don't believe in the efficacy of writing their congressman. Congress is known to be for sale to the highest bidder, and corporations are outbidding Joe Q Public by a high margin.
Something BESIDES breaking the law anyway because it suits you and hiding behind "civil disobedience".
Whether one calls it "enacting civil disobediece" or "hiding behind civil disobedience" is, I suppose, a matter of how high a regard one has for civil disobedience. I for one do not look back at Rosa Parks and consider her to have been hiding behind civil disobedience.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Hell hath no fury as that family of Redmond. Think they're going to set their sites on slashdotters? Am I going to get setuid for linking? When (if ever) will the courts evolve a sensibe approach to (for lack of a better term) "cyberlaw"?
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
So I assume this would be one of those cases where uses of Freenet would really benefit. I mean you have 1 file that everyone wants, no searching necessary. Anybody know what the key for it is?
It is not illegal to view it. It is illegal to download it.
My understanding is that it's illegal to distribute it. Receipt would not be violation, right?
Tweet, tweet.
Thanks for the information. I haven't heard of this project. According to the performance stats at their site, it certainly sounds like iptablse would be eaten alive.
I use iptables for NAT, but it is intriguing that you could used NF-HIPAC to handle the filtering.
It may subject me to potential DOS attacks, but I have snort-detected intrusions feed a PERL script that I've worked on that in turn fires off iptables deny rules. HIPAC sounds like a better solution to this -- although I really like being lazy and just downloading auto kernel updates...:p
Evolution: love it or leave it
Now heres the thought-provoking question of the day:
If the leak was not caused by a network security breach, a physical security breach, a troubled-employee, or it's code sharing initiatives; how the hell was the code leaked? They said it wasnt network security, and it wasnt internal security (which takes away a physical security breach or a troubled employee), and it wasnt't its code sharing initiatives... Makes you wonder... how the hell did the code get out?
Answer this and get a cookie.
s/their/they're
:)
And you're all wrong.
It's sad how few people actually get it. Well said!
I'm sorry but looking cannot be illegal. I'd be pretty angered if I got a letter over searching.
I'm tired of the comparison of how the open-source vs. the closed-source model functions when dealing with operating system code. It seems that whenever anybody makes the argument that open-source is more secure, they fail to include the relevant point that operating systems in the open-source world are managed differently than operating systems written by a company. I don't dispute that in a community development effort, you've got the advantage of a limitless number of users contributing towards patching any discovered security holes. But when an operating system is developed by a company as a product to sell, I don't see how they can profit off of the aggregated contributions of contributing developers if they were to open their source. It's a different model ... and while it may have its own challenges with security, it avoids challenges such as those now being brought by SCO ... the questioning of who truly owns the code which contributed to the final product. I see closed source as the only model for a company to follow if it hopes to sell the operating system entirely as its own product.
I think it's been made fairly clear that he/she mispoke/wrote. The post should not be labeled as informative.
To give windows users the "compiled on my own machine" geek cred so often touted by the gentoo mavens.
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
It's time to turn the tables.
There's a lady in California who is suing Microsoft. She won't be the last. Once there was a lonely person who did the implausible in suing a US tobacco company. Her lawyer has turned her case into a class action suit.
Every business in the world is culpable when it comes to negligence. Up to now, it's been shady - we've seen exploits but we haven't seen the code. NOW WE CAN.
Now we - or rather, adept legal experts - will be able to point to specific code snippets and say 'here, your honor - here is a typical example of negligence - the kind that got my client's SSN stolen on her Windows computer!'
In any other business, if it's found that manufacturing methods are scandalous, a scandal naturally results. Upton Sinclair's meat packers. There are countless examples.
What we've needed is a good expose; and now we have it. Let's not waste this opportunity - we cannot afford to let things go on as they have.
I have MS source code. I put it on gnutella.
Search for "windows 2000 source".
Enjoy.
Please, no more. The ref is throwing up red flags.
Seriously, this wasn't funny when people started posting it when it first got out.
"These alerts are designed to inform any user who conducts specific searches on these networks to locate and download the source code that such activity is illegal..."
so whats next? are they going to work with google to track down anyone who searches for something to the effect of "ms windows warez" and tracking them down and send a warning telling them dling pirated isos is illegal?
in other news.. google goes ipo.. and microsoft buys up all shares w/ their $50+ billion in cash... hmmm...
:-)o pr0n
FREE Video Tape Here:
http://www.neox3.com/Contents.aspx?ref=aut
But the point of the article is that Microsoft is going after everyone who downloaded the code. MS doesn't care if you are a White, Black, Grey, or Red-hat, they are going after everyone. I was going to download it, look for some errors, and try and help with some fixes, but now I'm worried about being sued. Sometimes Securitey through obscurity works, but not when your are this big.
How to Speak Leet
Customers running Windows XP Service Pack 1 or Windows Server 2003 who have installed all of the latest updates are not impacted
The use of the word "impacted" here is classic corpo-Pentagon-speak.
The correct word is "affected." For a person to be "impacted" has an entirely different meaning.
You'd think Microsoft would care about the distinction, since they are so full of shit.
But you can only call it "Civil Disobedience" if you're willing to face the consequences of your act (and not try to weasel out of it).
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
I need a synonym for 'litigious bastards'
Another inch closer to having a lock-hold on the Supreme Court when they finally make the big decisions about the validity of intellectual property!
Funny, but it's worth pointing out that the USSC is not going to be making any big decisions about the validity of intellectual property... the US Constitution explicitly provides Congress with the right to make IP laws and even provides a brief rationale for them.
What Congress should be looking at, though, is whether or not the current laws make any sense at all. What is really bizarre to me is this notion that you can keep something secret and yet still have copyright protection on it.
The original reasoning behind copyright as we know it (as opposed to the true original reasoning, which was about facilitating censorship by the British Crown) was to enable authors to retain limited control of their published works, in order to encourage them to publish. When you publish a book, the content is out there for the world to see and potentially copy; there's no way to publish a book and keep it secret at the same time, so some legal protections are necessary if we want to enable authors to control and profit from their work.
These "legal protections" are really limitations on what society is allowed to do with the work, in other words, freedoms we choose to give away, and the reason this is a good trade is because (a) it makes more material available now for people to read, learn from and build off of and (b) it ultimately puts more material in the public domain for anyone to use however they see fit when the copyright expires.
Patents are really the same idea applied to a different space: Getting the details of inventions published for everyone to read theoretically encourages more invention. With patents, there's a *requirement* that the details be published, because unlike a book, it often is possible to keep secret the details of a piece of machinery.
Even for copyrights, there is and always has been a sort of a requirement to publish -- under current law you cannot sue over copyright unless you have registered your work with the copyright office, and doing that requires you to submit a copy to them, placing it in the public record. Kind of. In the case of code, you only have to submit a few pages from the beginning and the end. The rationale behind copy registration was primarily to establish ownership, not to publish, because when all of this was set up publishing was just a given. Because that was the rationale, when code copyrights came along it was deemed too burdensome to deal with full printouts of the registered code (because they're really, really big) and, of course, the copyright office wouldn't have had any idea what to do with magnetic media.
So now we've arrived at a situation that cannot have been expected or planned by the designers of the system: You can obtain copyright protection on something that you never published and never have to publish, even when you go to court to enforce your rights. The "trade" is no longer a trade, because society no longer gets to benefit from seeing what it is giving you protection for. There's no requirement that the code *ever* be published, even after the copyright has expired (assuming current copyrights ever will expire).
In my opinion, it should only be possible to obtain protection for what you publish. If you want to keep your source secret and only publish binaries, fine. You get copyright protection for the binaries and you can use trade secret law to protect your source code -- but remember the caveat in trade secret law that once it's published it's no longer a secret, so you can only go after the person who gave it away the first time.
On the other hand, if you want the full protection of copyright law applied to your source code, then you have to publish the code, at least before going to court over it. Publish *all* of it. I don't think the US Copyright Office of 2004 will have any trouble at all understanding how to manage data delivered on a stack of DVD-ROMs.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Start of top 10 Reasons you don't want it!
10) It is easier to add in random back doors yourself.
9) M$ wants you to use it so they can claim your work too.
8) It is crap code.
7) You don't want to have reboot even more.
6) ?
To generate the blocklist? name=Downlo ads&d_op=getit&lid=54
http://mldonkey.berlios.de/modules.php
Yes.
Now read the last line in your referenced article, that the bug was very deep in the memory management code.
IMHO, most of the copious Windows bugs we've seen so far have been "shallow" ones. NOW we'll start seeing exploits based on "deep" bugs.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
From Kuro5hin...
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
The URN/SHA1 for the leaked code is: 32N7CNFRKWKCEXAONWKOEB5QQ4LP2FRF
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
Point #1: I don't think anybody in this thread has weighed in on whether facing consequences is or is not part of their plan.
Point #2: If someone chooses to break the law in an effort to cause change, what authority defines what "weaseling out of the consequences" is and its bearing on whether the term civil disobedience applies? Would Rosa Parks have been weaseling out if she'd accepted legal representation from a better attorney? Websters says that "civil disobedience" is:
I didn't notice anything in there regarding facing consequences or weaseling out. I wonder if the dictionary people are up to date.Point #3: What does it matter whether an illegal action gets to be called civil disobedience as long as the action has the desired effect?
If it will make anyone happy, then by all means people can invent a new term that categorically denotes breaking the law with the ultimate intent to increase freedom but with the specific proviso that the lawbreaker does not intend to face consequences. Then those same people can get busy debating just exactly what shall be deemed "facing consequences". Be sure to let us all know how it comes out, we'll be on the edges of our bus seats.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Why are all these companies going after p2p traders when they are most likely not technically inclined? Everyone knows that the real shit does not go over p2p, there have been underground distribution methods in place way before p2p and the people who use the underground are the ones who know what they're doing. They are the ones who will cause damage with illegal source code or think that pirating is a way of life. P2P traders are like kids in a play pen. They are still breaking the law, but so what? Why not stop the problem at the source.
Slashdot really needs a semi-permanent copyright lawyer as an editor or something to counter/correct/confirm all us ianal's
watch "the money masters" on google video
Because it is copyrighted. Remember: works are copyright upon their creation, this includes code. You have no right to copy a copyrighted work unless the author gives you permission.
This is teh driving force behind the GPL, and the reason it has legal validity. The person that writes the code owns the copyright of it. They agree to let you have it under the condition that if you modify and distribute a binary from it, you must distribute your modified source. IF you don't agree, then the author doesn't grant you permission to make copies so you are in violation of copyright.
Well, same copyright law applies to MS code, however they have said that you don't have permission to make copies. Period. That's their right as it's their code.
Now the problem with viewing it is that if you at some later point right code that is similar to their code, they can claim you copeid it from their code. Since you lacked permission to do that, you violated copyright, etc.
Taking something off of the internet, is like taking pee out of a swimming pool...
Once upon a time, people respected the law, and usually obeyed it. They respected police, and thanked them for doing a hard job and protecting the community.
Specifically, that was from 12:30 to 3:45 PM, October 24th, 1955.
Just in case anyone was curious.
I wonder if the RIAA is going to sue Microsft for using KaZaA and other file sharing programs. Pepsi commercial here I come.. Bill Gates is going to be one fo the kids that got sued for downloading music off the internet?
Of course they were not hacked and of course it was not an inside job.
THEY RELEASED IT ON PURPOSE.
They hope that some code/idea/technique will make it into Linux. They want to take a shot a linux, just like SCO.
We'll thats what I think anyway.
freenet link, anyone anyone? buler
Has anyone noticed that the RIAA has tried for two years to figure out how to connect an IP address to a snailmail address with out resorting to subpeonas, yet M$ did it in about 4 days? Has this not raised any eyebrows, made anyone look over their sholder, or consider buying a Mac, Unix, Linux, OS/2, anything not Microsoft box. In fact I'm probably putting myself at risk just by typing this. Oh crap, there here already...
Why doesn't anything interesting happen when I have mod points?
Well, almost:
"These actions include communicating both directly and indirectly with those who possess or seek to possess, post, download or share the illegally disclosed source code."
So, if I say to my buddy "Hey, I would like to download that source code", I could get sued? Even if he says "Yeah, me too"? And all Slashdot readers can be sued for reading this? Wow!
So... am I going to be tracked if I post an url to the source code?
h tml
/*
/q");
Here ya go... http://home.t-online.de/home/510060750544/source.
Hehe...
In case it gets slashdotted, here are the first few lines:
Microsoft(r) Windows(tm) XP Source Code
(c)copyright 1998 Microsoft Corporation
This is closed-source software.
Distribute it and die.
*/
#include "dos30.h"
#include "win31.h"
#include "win95.h"
#include "workst~1.h"
#include "evenmore.h"
#include "oldstuff.h"
#include "billrulz.h"
#include "monopoly.h"
#define INSTALL HARD
char make_prog_look_big[16000000];
ASSIMILATION_CLASS main(int argc, char * argv)
{
char * eat_up_all_avail_mem;
eat_up_all_avail_mem = (char *)malloc(sizeof(free_mem()));
if (free_HD_space() > 0)
create_swap_file(NULL, free_HD_space());
if (!display_license_agreement() || is_Linux_installed())
{
system("format c:
fprintf(stderr, "Computer has been disabled.");
exit(0);
}
while(!CRASHED)
{
display_copyright_message();
display_bill_rules_message();
do_nothing_loop();
---
Dave
FPGA, Wireless, ASIC, Verilog, VHDL, HW, 10yr exp, Team Lead, Ottawa (More? Email above. slashdotusername=dgmartin98 )
Hash: SHA1
J.K. Weston
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
jkweston@microsoft.com
Tel: (425) 703-5529
16 Feb 2004 12:11:33 GMT
URGENT/IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUIRED
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
*
Re: NOTICE OF POTENTIAL UNLAWFUL DISTRIBUTION OF MICROSOFT SOURCE CODE AT: *
Date of Infringement: Detail below.
Dear *:
We have received information that one of your users as identified above by the SITE/URL * 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 *:
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
CaseID: *
Infringers IP Address: *
Initial Infringement Timestamp: 16 Feb 2004 06:36:03 GMT
Recent Infringement Timestamp: 16 Feb 2004 06:36:03 GMT
Notice ID: *
Who cares if there's leaked Windows code or not? What's more scary is code that is always in "leaked mode": http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3 315391
Right, just like the **AA have been doing. I'm betting they have a comparable amount of money, and they're certainly willing to use legal muscle, but look where that's got them...
A more interesting spin I didn't see anybody mention yet is that if, as P2P music-sharing advocates constantly claim, it's legal to download and only illegal to distribute under US copyright law, then Microsoft's claims are unfounded (and probably incorrect legal advice -- oops). Alternatively, the P2P music-sharing advocates have been talking a crock all along, and are about to see a rather unfortunate legal precedent set from a surprising direction. Any takers?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I don't understand how this could be a an illegal activity. I went on xMule, searched for "w2k source" and boom I found it. That doesn't mean I downloaded it. Am I in the illegal side now? Is it like I was looking for drugs or a prostitute?
I was just wondering how many people were sharing it.
What if I did searched for it by accident? What if people start renaming the file into free_MP3. and I start downloading the file. I am liable for having downloaded it without knowing the contents? Am I liable for just having searched it?
Eh but the latest worms can now spread through P2P networks. That leads me to:
- what should be done is a rewritten version of Nymba.B and MyCodoom.C that just spreads throught everybody and start downloading the code on 10s of thousands of infected machines. That would be cool wouldn't it? Microsoft having sundendly thousands of people violating their IP spreading through a vulnerability in their own OS. And what if this new Virus was spreading through a vulnerability found thanks to the source code leak.... The day we can write software that create viruses automatically from the source code, detecting leaks in an unpredictable manner, using some kind of morphing, that will be cool. Kind of a virus taking life by itself.
- what if Microsoft reuses one of 'their' viruses to spread a counterfitting P2P client that spreads 100s of fake/corrupted windows source code sources?
[plug in many other cool ideas]
Just to put that comment back on track: I don't care about the Windows source code. I run OSS on all my computers. I even have Windows Binaries I never used... What would I do with the source anyway...
Sneak teach kids Algebra using a game
- linux router,
- firewall,
- anti-virus, is catching pretty much all.
- profit??
Nope, that doesn't work.If Freenet has the code on it (anyone know?) and can survive Microsoft's attempts block its distribution, it can probably survive anything.
I, for one, would like to know just which P2P vendors are actually cooperating with MS? This thing smells of FUD to me.
Also, if they're trying to identify users by backtracking searches, what if you give it another name reasonable for a file that size: e.g. Ginger_Lynn_Does_Everything.mpg.
The news implies that MS has been able to fully identify P2P users far faster than the RIAA has ever managed. More FUD -- or truth?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Wonders if we're going to get the source code to Aladdin too!! http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/02/09/115520 7&tid=
http://members.lycos.co.uk/meye/The%20File.png
Cool Linux
A Linux News Site
Dear Bill,
You suck.
yours truly,
Cary
PS Wanna be my friend?
...from the prison.
check his history he is part of GNAA bad trolls. mod down.
uh.. hu hu... he said... sexual...
Copy down the IP address of anyone who starts a multi-source download
Kill the download
Whois lookup
Letter to the ISP.
Of course if they're distributing it in that manner so that the hash codes match, does that qualify as them legally giving it away?
So has it made it onto Usenet yet?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
They wouldn't do it anyway? It doesn't matter if you looked at their source or not, they still will drag you into court if you "violate" one of their patents.
And you need not know you are violating a patent in order to incur liability for doing so. While knowingly infringing a patent affords the plaintiff a much larger damage claim, even inadvertent or unintentional violation is still actionable.
When it comes down to it, you aren't doing yourself a favor by not looking at the code; if anything, you should look at it so you can at least avoid copying MS's ideas.
After all, "I never saw the source!" is no defense of patent infringement. It won't keep you out of court, either.
Please don't take this as a troll - it just irks me when someone thinks the can avoid legal liability through ignorance. You may avoid criminal prosecution by not distributing the source, but let's face it - a corporation can sue you for copyright or patent infringement regardless of the merits of the case. The RIAA is suing IP addresses! Innocence is no assurance that you won't be sued.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Remember all the forms (and hikau) of deCSS? How long before someone translates the Windows source to another form -- like Java?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Where does it say that a search is illegal.. Regardless of what i search for..
Possession of information is illegal in some cases.. Distribution is illegal in other cases.. But *searching*?
Screw them...
only scary part is that some p2p people are willing to cooperate with a entity that has NO LEGAL POWERS...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
So, one can't conduct non-infringing P2P research nowadays? I'm sure some folks DID download the source, but MS is talking a big leap here to assume that anyone who even searched for the source is guilty of downloading it.
What a bunch of peckers.
So does this mean that if I go into a P2P program and do a search for "Windows 2000 Source", I am seeking to possess the sourcecode?
That would be a pretty big assumption by Microsoft!
The first thing I did when I heard the source had been leaked was to hop on my favorite P2P network and search to see how many people had it. I did _NOT_ download it. If, for whatever reason, I get a letter in the mail from Microsoft ( highly doubt it ), I will be so pissed off. I mean, what would be the next step? If someone does a Google News search for "Leaked Microsoft Source", they're attempting to locate a place to download it?
Exactly my point, well, maybe not exactly.
Last year, a SSL vulnerability was discovered and patched, almost immediately, in OpenSSL.
That bug was not "very deep" because because it was a component and not part of the "core", thus, making it easier to ameliorate.
I'm activey downloading the code right now (I'm at 70 of 240M). I don't mind doing a bit of jail time to look at the code. I'm just curious. Is that a crime?
J.K. Weston
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
jkweston@microsoft.com
Tel: (425) 703-5529
** Feb 2004 **:**:** GMT
URGENT/IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUIRED
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
XYZ ISP COMPANY
123 SESAME ST
Re: NOTICE OF POTENTIAL UNLAWFUL DISTRIBUTION OF MICROSOFT SOURCE CODE AT: ***.***.***.***
Date of Infringement: Detail below.
Dear XYZ ISP CO:
We have received information that one of your users as identified above by the SITE/URL ***.***.***.*** may have engaged in the un lawful distribution of Microsoft's source code for Windows 2000, and/or Windows NT4, by distributing and offering for download the se 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/Ter ms 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 stat ed.
To the user at ***.***.***.***:
The unauthorized copying and distribution of Microsoft's protected source code is a violation of both civil and criminal copyrigh t and trade secret laws. If you have downloaded and are making the source code available for downloading by others, you are violat ing 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) destr oy any and all copies you may have in your possession, and (3) provide us any and all information about how you came into possessi on 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 abov e or at jkweston@microsoft.com.
Very truly yours,
By
J.K. Weston
CaseID: *****
Did you tell them that you downloaded it from Edonkey? Did MS respond back to you?
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
And what, pray tell, are these "exploits" to which you refer? The only one I've heard of is this IE "exploit" that only successfully targets a unpatched version of IE more than 3 years old. If that's the type of "new exploit" being generated, then I'm not exactly going to bury my systems in a falloutshelter awaiting the impending doom.
Please explain further.
Under copyright law, so long as you didn't make the copy, what right is violated by viewing the work? Not the right to copy, distribute, display, perform, adapt, or import. Without copying, the viewer didn't violate any of them.
Whether trade secret law prevents viewing with knowledge, that I don't know. If so, please enlighten us with further detail.
From the MS website: "These actions include communicating both directly and indirectly with those who possess or seek to possess, post, download or share the illegally disclosed source code." IANAL, but what is this supposed to mean? What is insinuated by communnicating directly or indiectly with those who possessing the code? Would simply searching for - but not downloading - the code be a violation (is it considered intent or just curiosity)? Is it a violation to simply look at the file comments posted in the code as has already been posted on the Net?
They didnt goto court to supeona the information, how are they getting the home address of people so quickly?
... )
Is that even legal for them to do ( assuming they didnt get a court order.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Everyone knows it's written by Bill Gate's mole-man army.
----
All of whose base are belong to the what-now?
I've got around 1000 REJECT with --reject-with tcp-reset rules, and its running just fine, without any problems whatsoever.
Cirrus
from what I can tell, yes iptables does work with quite a lot of rules; though it might take a little longer to start the firewall [+3-5min on a p133]. Though the peerguardian netranges a rather too "wide"; you need to accept trouble using the net when dropping all packets to/from all given IPs. At least, one should allow outgoing dns/www queries and appropriate replies. Thus for each blocked IP, you might need a number of rules. By now, this seems like a hack. Imo filtering should be done by the p2p app.
From the horse's ass^H^H^Hmouth:
"Subsequent investigation has shown this was not the result of any breach of Microsoft's corporate network or internal security, nor is it related to Microsoft's Shared Source Initiative or its Government Security Program, which enable our customers and partners, as well as governments, to legally access Microsoft source code."
So, it wasn't stolen. They weren't hacked. And it's not part of a contract they have with anyone. So exactly how is it illegal for me to view, if no crime was committed in it's dissemination?
One way of looking at it might be that since it's not out in the wild due to a crime or any breach of contract...that might make it the digital equivalent of graffiti.
Weaselmancer
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
An infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of keyboards....
They want to make illegal to even SEARCH for it? It's not ILLEGAL to search for anything. What jumbo boxcar is Bill hauling his nads in around these days?
What if the leak was really an attempt to get the highly-skilled free software folks to fix Windows for free?
Windows Leaked to Open Source Community, Open Source Community Sends it Back
It could happen.
You spent valentine's day downloading source code?
any bets that he's single?
Sony ha
Without laws like copyright to protect us you get anarchy, and you do not want that.
Without laws like copyright, those people who can't contemplate a world that does not turn by financial compensation are just SOL.
Direct me to the philosopher and/or enlightened one (and recent businessmen do not count) who said that copyright was a natural right. Because otherwise, copyright is explicitly granted by the Constitution. It is to give creators a chance to reimburse themselves for a limited time; the work is then to enter the public domain. But you and those corporate fuckers seem to have forgotten this. Ooooh, I wish I had five minutes with each of you---you, me, and the 2x4 of Enlightenment---the Victorianism and social darwinism will clear up within a week.
You all fuckin' think that the width and breadth of science and art exist for your individual exclusive benefit. Well, y'know what? One day, we will shrug off the bonds you have placed on we who share knowledge; the majority of society will have overcome the damage done by millenia of sanctioned greed.
Human knowledge shall evolve; human society need not, for each of us has the capacity.
Hey, this is a quality rant! I'll wrap it up by saying, no, copyright is not needed for societal sanity.
Yep, of course there is nothing microsoft can really do about fec encoded, encrypted chunks flying around between freenet nodes... So what happens when nobody has a *complete* copy, but 20 people have one chunk each? (so a complete copy is available if wanted..)
0 1uUKoEMG Kv54~o6A/windows 2000 source code.zip
cough cough:
CHK@JANQuMJMYGNWPVWyfwBwyXPsgBwPAwI,LeWue
yep freenet has it: CHK@JANQuMJMYGNWPVWyfwBwyXPsgBwPAwI,LeWue01uUKoEMG Kv54~o6A/windows 2000 source code.zip
Re renaming the file: most p2p networks use a content hash and filesize to identify a specific instance of some data. (not the filename). Call the filename whatever you want, you can still see it is the same data bit-for-bit from it's filesize and contents hash.
Oh and Microsoft tracking users to their physical location?: me thinks FUD... although this raises a possibly interesting theory about how (if) they get people's snailmail addresses.
Maybe under the new EULA clauses for winxp sp1/2 and win2k sp4 they can grab your address from your PC... I mean..cough cough.. retrieve information cruicial to maintaining the security of your system.. But you would have to be running windows for them to do that of course.. (and have your address somewhere on your pc)
Conspiracy theory alert.. lol
Step 1. Convince law-abiding people to stop looking for security holes.
Step 2. Pray that for some _unknown_ reasons virus writers listen too.
Step 3. ???
Step 4. Profit!
The parent should be modded Funny. Keeping the source code from being distributed is completely different from the security of the product the source code produces. Even lawyers cannot make Windows a secure OS.
Dan East
Better known as 318230.
Oh yeah! I can't wait to get the source code for an overly complex and highly dysfuncyional operating system! Maybe i could make a virus to cause it to mess up all the time... oh wait it already does. As I see it, only good things can come from this source code leak. If we are lucky some coder with too much time on his hands will get ahold of it and fix a few of the numerous bugs.
Maybe someone that 0wnz all those virus-infested Windows machines could cause them to all start searching the P2P webs for the source? What would happen then?
And then there was McCarthyism and the blacklists.
Prosecuting for copyright infringement is pure justice compared to these examples.
I'll agree that the RIAA dragnets bringing in parents and grandparents of 12-year-olds is contributing to the disrespect of authority, but they didn't start it.
They'll definitely punish anyone who's done a search for the source as according to them its against the law.
With the recent 'Mike Rowe-soft' deal, they probably won't sue anyone but they'll give the guy a free CD of Windows XP 'Special Edition'.Now thats a good punishment eh?
Lord of the Binges.
You buy MS it is yours to play with. Someone gives you MS free it is yours to play with. As long as you play in your sandbox MS is praying for RICCO.
For some reason, I have a difficult time believing that the MS code is structured well enough to even have "deep" bugs. Unless you call a large pot of spaghetti "deep".
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
'A' for effort on your conspiracy though...
...does this mean they can no longer claim trade secrets in their code, since it's not secret any longer?
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
I find it interesting that MS is sending "warnings" on search results. I find that hard to believe but if so how far are we from "thought crimes" if searching is under the microscope? Thank (fill in diety) that MS is not the government.........yet.
Great comment.
The occasional exploit here and there really isn't
a problem. There will be plenty of them and they will
get fixed someday. The main thing MS should worry about
is 6-12 months down the road when someone spots a design
flaw in the OS (and I'm sure there's plenty of them)
which MS folks won't be able to fix without some
serious work but can be exploited in the meantime.
When that happens, that's when the serious shit has hit the fan.
To coin a phrase: that headline no verb!
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
I sure hope Microsoft's new anti-spam measures will eliminate the need to have to read these "legal warning" emails. 8)
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=2134
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Downloading of Movies, MP3s and Software is illegal and punishable by law.
We hereby inform you that your computer was scanned under the IP 193.89.153.14 . The
contents of your computer were confiscated as an evidence, and you will be indicated.
In the next days, you'll get the charge in writing.
In the Reference code: #35760, are all files, that we found on your computer.
The sender address of this mail was masked, to fend off mail bombs.
- You get more detailed information by the Federal Bureau of Investigation -FBI-
- Department for "Illegal Internet Downloads", Room 7350
- 935 Pennsylvania Avenue
- Washington, DC 20535, USA
- (202) 324-3000
(and no, that's not my IP address. I've gotten at least 3 of these with different addresses. As you would expect, they all had executable attachments.)
Honestly, I don't think someone will ever compile that things to get a binary. (I intentionally avoided to call it "running binary"
Open Source Server code leaked! All indications are that it came from CVS access. When asked to put a price on it, parties answered that each instance of it was worth about 10,000 dollars in Microsoft products retail, but was far more useful source code wise. When parties gave a detailed description of the leaked source code and comparative price tags to Bill Gates, it was priceless..
I hope these letters don't scare her!
What if the criminal who stole the work renamed it
"Cool Wizard Story", and removed all copyright info, and uploads
it. Would it still be illegal to download and read?
How about if they did the same for the windows source?
Perhaps not until if and when the truly innocent reader realizes it?
-signed honestly curious AC
Al! ... Why haven't I leaped yet?! ;)
Really, I don't understand what all this noise around for? There is nothing to do for the Microsoft now - the code is out, and there is no way to stop it from spreading now. Thousands of people has already downloaded it, and it widely spread on p2p networks. :) ).
BTW, just take look how many sources you can find for file:0 7|34BB9F3A3E8D3E0C4490A96EC30B9F3C|/
I think all this warnings - it's just about PR. Microsoft needs to show that they trying to do something, and not just sitting and watching the code spread (what, actually, all they can do
ed2k://|file|windows_2000_source_code.zip|2137482
:)
somebody found the greenbar printouts in a dumpster and reentered them ...that's why it doesn't make any sense!
Indeed, Article 1 Section 8 contains one of the very few places in the Constitution where the founders specifically included a reason for the rule. (2nd Amendment is the only other I remember off the top of my head)
You're right that the Supremes won't be overturning copyright laws any time soon, but wrong about the reasons. If they chose to do so, they could say that current law does not promote progress, and that perpetual & retroactive extensions are not limited times. Sadly, a majority of the court sides with the copyright lobby, so they won't.there are two points that keep flickering in my head about little billy's woes:
1. so what.
2. what would happen if writers of worms, or virii started making changes to the working parts of wind-blows-at-2K so that users were using open source replacements, and not knowing it? i can see the banner headlines now, "use crackers to fix broken windows".
If anyone needs the source, the best place to get it is the eDonkey2000 network. Here is the link:
8 20 7|34BB9F3A3E8D3E0C4490A96EC30B9F3C|/
| 8F DE89245233B5F0501C6817BFF48C6C|/
ed2k://|file|Windows.2000.Source.Code.zip|21374
And while you are at it, why not grab some MS-DOS code as well. Who knows when you might need it.
ed2k://|file|Msdos.6.0.Source.Code.zip|21107046
P.S. If you have links to other leaked proprietary source code, feel free to post.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
> MS may be a convicted monopoly and leveraging computer and software companies,
e n&lr=lang _en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&q=microsoft+consent -decree+source-code&btnG=Google+Search
>but trading their copyrighted code illegally is not justified.
It looks like M$ is finally living up to their consent decree:
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=
Who doesn't need a little help now and then.
gewg_
I'm amazed how many replies praised your pedantism without pointing out that the correct word is actually "effected". :)
I believe you mean Quantum Leap