Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Security Updates for Pirated Windows?
zachlipton writes "DSL Reports has an interesting question posted: should users with pirated copies of Windows be allowed to download security updates, such as for Sasser? Apparently, without a valid CD key, users cannot download these updates. Do they get what they deserve, or should they be allowed these updates through Windows Update in order to reduce the impact of these worms on the rest of the net? Should security updates only for worms be made available to pirated users, or also updates for issues that while not posing a risk to other internet users, would open the pirate up to a security hole?"
I am pretty sure MSDN version of windows XP don't have activation keys and such. Does that mean they can't upgrade?
because if they dont let me patch my OS, ill bring down the rest of the world's infastructure with me!!
Mwaahahahhaha!
why i laugh?
A morning without coffee is like something without something else.
Pirates should get updates as much as they get support from any other product they stole: Zero.
Want software without paying for it? Use Free Software. Theres heaps of it.
If they can pirate the operating system, why can't they just pirate the patches too?
Hear recorded Slashdot headlines on your phone! New service beta testing. Just call (248) 434-5508
For the sake of internet's bandwidth, they should at least get the updates that are exploited by DDoS worms ;)
Whatever they decide will no doubt be best for everyone. Afterall, they have the resources to really look into the questions while all we can do is speculate.
If they cant download the updates, and havoc is all the more extreme because of poor MS coding, it only shines a brighter light on alternative operating systems.
Ive been saying forever that the year MS perfects its anti-piracy technique really WILL BE the year of the linux desktop, and this (at least in my eyes) is a step closer to that.
the EULA attached to the security patches, even when you are legitimate owner of a copy of Windows!
Bull. I update my pirate copies of XP all of the time.
Its microsofts perogotive, theyre not in any way required to support pirated versions of their software, and why should they bother. On the other hand, these worms negativly effect everyone. Although if your smart enough to pirate windows (there are some tricks joe sixpack wouldn't know right away) you should be savy enough to get a keygen of kazza or something. Not that thats how i got XP SP1 or anything...
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
Not saying I pirate windows or anything of the sort. But jsut because they dont get patches doesnt mean they wont pirate. It just means that when worms come out, it will be that much worse. Pirates tend to be a lil smarter, and actually keep their systems up to date.
I would hate to see sasser or code red hit the large percetage of people that pirate, and CANT patch. Internet go byebye!
snowulf.com
I've seen several "corporate" XP cds floating around, as well as some beta versions which contain all XP functionality once patched through Windows Update.
Microsoft disables some CD keys already which are known to be pirated, but I wonder how many valid corporate group cd key installations there are which have been pirated. In that case, it really wouldn't be feasible for MS to disable that cd key, as it would disable that entire company, etc.
"Sed Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?" -Juvenal
"Dodge this!"
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
corporate edition.
Harder.. Better.. Faster.. Stronger
It is fundamentally a companies sole responsibility to ensure that any flaws within its products are fixed. By using their own mistakes as a punishment for people who pirate that are propagating flawed copies of their software. Microsoft should allow any user of their products regardless of if they have a right to it to have updates. They can fight piracy in more responsible and effective ways, for there are other people who use the network.
Why should it have to pay for the bandwidth to support pirated copies? There is no benefit to them.
Most if not all infected Sasser users around here had legit but hadn't bothered to update. Real crackers use the corporate version of Windows that apparently doesn't require a CD key for updates.
Trollem mirabilem hanc subnotationis exigiutas non caperet
Support is Free ... duh, not like they have to pay for all that bandwidth or anything. They may be able to afford it, but why would any company (ala: Redhat) be forced to maintain something that wasn't purchased? All real property vs intellectual property ideals aside, that's like blaming Ford that your stolen car can't be serviced.
I have been of the oppinion that App level firewalls at the ISP level (hell even port blocking during worm-storms) is a necessary function. During the Nachi outbreak ISPs were killing ICMP just because of the sheer mass of pings flying around were bring down gear.
At the very least, ISPs should be responsible for the prevention of outbound malicious traffic, automated or manual (aka: crackers, kiddies etc.)
When they knowingly ignore the traffic traversing their network and wreaking havoc on others, I am always disgusted.
Not that my shit don't stink, but if I got a line spewing worm, it gets pulled till it's clean. Thank goodness for the public sector.
to make all the warez xp's to buy a copy!
Yes, they should allow pirated copies to download the security updates. They'll just be turned into proxy servers to launch further attacks if they don't, and considering hackers are starting to target Microsoft's servers itself now with these proxies, I'd think it'd be in their best interests overall.
Besides, if I owned Microsoft I wouldn't really want to give these people yet another reason to switch over to Linux.
Creator of the popular web game Proximity
It's probably in everyone's interest to give out patches to all, even those that Micro$oft knows are illegal copies, as it probably impacts the spread of viruses such as Sasser more than it does their pocketbook.
no.
"Ain't that a B!" -Rick James
/dev/random
Uhhh, you can still download updates with a pirated version of Windows Xp. There are many programs that anyone can easily download, that will generate, and put to use a new serial number that will allow you to use Windows Update.
Company profits vs. general good of the internet. I really wonder which one they'll choose.
(note that I left out writing better software)
SecondPageMedia - Wha
Does this mean "activated" windows xp versions, or just ones with an cd key? I downloaded a version of XP Corporate, which is essentially XP Pro w/o needing to phone into Microsoft to "activate" it. I did need to find a CD key on one of those "Crackz & Serialz" sites. I haven't been able to use the automated Windows Update, but manually going to microsoft.com and downloading them has always worked for me... has this changed recently?
These people have pirated the software. == no support == no upgrades. Sure, it would help the rest of the net if they weren't spreading the worm, but since when has M$ considered the well-being of the internet their responsibility?
"as if nothing were solid...and that would be the end of the world, not fire and brimstone, but goo."--Rand
Maybe it's something you could get used to.
Frank: Hey Bob, could I burn a CD on your computer?
Bob: Yeah sure.
Frank: Uhh. It says it's going to shut down in 60 seconds.
Bob: Yep. Gotta work fast.
Give people more incentive to use linux instead of a pirated copy of XP.
The latest build( released in the last 4 days ) of the xp service pack2 beta, blocks a whole range of keys. People who have been using the corporate version of xp, using a keygen will find it will find it needs activating when the apply service pack 2.
The keygen(a very very very popular one) generates product keys in the range 640-645. SP2 turns activation back on when it detects this.
If you're using an illegal and UNSUPPORTED copy of windows, then, you should not be allowed to WindowsUpdate. I agree with this.
It's also a good incentive to be legit.
-Imidazole
Hilarious Office Prank!
That this is up for discussion shows how little Microsoft cares about the common good of the worlds internet users and therefore their customers.
Who was it said 'EULAs are what you use against your clients'?
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
We need to create an environment where piracy is looked down upon, not encouraged. Giving them updates is simply encouraging pirate behavior.
If an infected machine becomes such a problem that they're affecting other people, ISP's should simply revoke a users access until they upgrade to the latest patches and remove the virus. A pirated version of Windows wouldn't be able to get the updates and therefore would probably keep on getting the virus, costing them a great deal of inconvience every time their internet is shut off. Not to mention the knowledge that thier machine is going to be swamped with viruses and that their computer will be completely insecure.
The best way to get rid of pirates is to make the cost of pirating greater than the cost of buying the software (or finding a legit alternative).
I know with the installation of Windows XP SP1a, a specific activation code would not allow the service pack to install. This is obviously different from a security hotfix.
Not allowing security hotfixes for pirated copies isn't just a threat to the pirating user, but a threat to all legal users as well. When someone using the same web server as me and gets hit by Netsky, I AM GOING TO SUFFER. I own my copy of Windows 2000 Professional, and I periodically have a Linux machine going. I've done nothing morally wrong there, but I will suffer. Thats simply unacceptable.
Thinking business, could an ISP sue a user who is unable to resolve a security issue that pushes out 10K emails an hour if it was against their terms of service? Is it precedented?
I guess the short of my point is that it's not fair to the rest of the legal users when a pirated copy is responsible for bandwidth and storage abuse. No one should be denied security updates.
This article is misleading and transend into a completely difference arene without even addressing it. The article refer to the use of Windows Update service which offer patches and scanning function of Windows XP machines and a user inability to use that service has NOTHING to do with wherether they can patch their machine or not because they can patch their machine using a regular method of download a file and run it or uses other Software Management system to get their system(s) updated without using ANY Microsoft service. So this question doesn't apply in this case. In order to answer the question, NO users should not be allowed to use a service that they didn't paid for which in this case the Windows Update service offered by Micro$soft.
1. Open it up to all with a key
2. Log the ones who's key is invalid (unregistered)
3. SUE SUE SUE!!!
4. PROFIT!!!
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
I have pirated XP and I have access to windowsupdate and can install all patches.. ok i didnt install SP1 but thats not the only reason.. i have installed SP1 on other pcs and it works fine.. because I generated my own key, MS has a blacklist, but they cant block randomly generated keys because that would block all their keys since they're all random
The simple answer is yes.
For the common good of the internet, as well as for the sake of protecting Microsoft's already spotty image, they should be allowed to download hotfixes... after all, they wouldn't need them if Micrsoft had done it right in the first place.
The corporate answer is no.
They didn't pay for the software and are therefore ineligible for updates.
My opinion?
For the common good, Windows should go away. But until then, everyone running it, legally or not, needs to have access to emergency patches and fixes.
-- This sig for rent.
Many users say pirates who can't find workarounds should "reap what they sow", but their infected pirated Windows boxes impact non-pirates everywhere."
Umm except for that non-pirates can apply the patches which means they won't be infected. And if someone can't bother to take 2 minutes a month to install the updates then they probably don't care all that much whether their PC gets hosed. So what's the big deal? I'm on OS X and microsoft pirates not being able to patch hasn't hurt me any, so why should microsoft be forced to give amnesty?
I'm pretty sure that most copies of pirated XP floating around (the keyless corporate versions) will let users install everything but service packs. I don't know a lick about international piracy, but I imagine it's the same software.
I downloaded the patch to Win XP against Sasser, and it never even asked me for a CD key. (Which, given that I don't know where mine has gotten to now, is a good thing.)
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Of course the initial response is to think that those who have pirated copies must not receive updates.
As with all things though it's seldom that simple.
When a company such as Microsoft gain a significant share of the market (yes... monopoly), then the damage that saying no could be could actually threaten the stability of that society were their software to fail sigificantly.
i.e. If machines cannot be patched with at least the bare security updates, and those machines then assist in the even wider propagation of a virus or worm such that it affects the infrastructure of the Internet as a more general thing.
Then in those cases, would it not have been a civic duty upon the company to protect the wider Internet and society (of their original shortcomings in allowing the vunerability to exist) regardless.
So I'm more of the opinion that No should be the answer for all bells and whistles things... such as Media Player. But that all security patches should be installed on every machine possible... regardless of whether that is a machine without a legit key or not.
Interesetingly, this is probably opposite Microsofts view. As to be able to manipulate market forces they need critical mass in areas suh as Media Player. So I think from their perspective they would probably wish to allow the whistles, but to encourage/force the upgrade to a legal version would probably wish to disallow stability patches (read: security) so that legit systems are more stable.
You don't deserve the software update.
Granted, these people not getting the software updates will cause problems for the rest of us, in that they're propagating some sort of virus.
My solution to that is to shut off the users. If the ISP of this user can prove that the user's PC is infected and sending out the virus, then it should be simple for the ISP to say, "patch it, or we're shutting you down".
I'm not really fond of ISPs snooping in on my traffic to determine whether or not to cut me off, so they should base it on a complaint system - if somebody complains that you're spreading the virus, then the ISP investigates (I recall lots of people with logs of Code Red attacks). If they find proof that you're spreading the virus, then you're forced to patch, or if you can't, you're shut down.
Extreme, perhaps, but the only way that people will properly maintain their machines.
-- Joe
I've seen a couple of TechNet update pages, though, that don't provide direct download links, but instead refer to Windows Update (or WU Catalog).
Not that I'd know any of this from experience or anything...
Do that pirate blocking thing...Yes...
So we can all switch to LINUX!
Use your head if you are a businessman.
What's the cost of profit dum dum dimsum
Can't really say without knowing what the impact of unpatched pirated software really is. Course, i'm not going to hold my breath waiting for good data on this.
Ok, here's how it works. If you're smart enough to get a pirate copy of Windows, you're smart enough to get the update the same way. Why would you go through Microsoft to get their updates if you "pirated" their software? Go through the regular sources, right? I'm actually supised MS doesn't install a "patch" on systems without a key that make the system unusable. Seems to me like a good way to keep users that don't pay on the edge to the point where some of them will break down and pay. Then again, that's why I use Linux. I thought this was a Linux based site anyways?...
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
Regardless of how MS is the evil empire or whatever we're calling them this week, you shouldn't receive support if you didn't pay for it. They make a product, and if you choose to use it, then you should pay for it. Yes, their license costs an arm and a leg, but there's no excuse that warez monkeys should receive support. If I pirate WineX, should I be able to email the developers and ask for help on something? I'm not a developer, but if I was and I sold a commercial product, I'd be pissed off if someone had the audacity to ask me for updates if they willingly STOLE my work in the first place.
Microsoft should allow pirated copies to update for a number of reasons. First off, unpatched Windows machines make life worse for EVERYONE, and just makes Microsoft look worse. Secondly, why push people more toward Linux (from MS's point of view) Personally, I'm using XP Corporate installs at home. Is it legal? No. Do I feel guilty? Not in the least. Why not? Because I actually have MORE LEGIMATE XP PRO LICENSES THAN I HAVE XP PRO INSTALLED ON. I have 3 LEGIMATE XP Pro licenses, and 2 computers with XP Pro installed on them. I just am constantly changing hardware, and activation is a pain, so I install off a corporate CD to avoid it. I've been meaning to switch my main desktop to Linux anyway (I allready have more Linux boxes than Windows ones) If I couldn't update my XP corp install, it would probably be the push I need to do it...
Here in Poland, the only legal M$ software is in business or preinstalled. People who buy hardware with preinstalled soft are usualy technicaly illiterate. If for some reason update procedure becomes more complicated they'll simply abandon it. :) I work as helpdesk/(repair that crap) :)
So I think its good idea to make procedure complicated
On the one hand there is piracy. Even if you say it's an advantage for Microsoft because of more dependency, the truth is that it isn't what they want people doing with their product, and it is illegal. If you want the support you should fork over for the product; after all Windows is about as Not-Free-Software as you can get. Perhaps if it wasn't such as widespread, costs to cover piracy would come down, and Windows would be cheaper and thus more easily availible. A rock and a hard place, people will need to buy before they can afford, and the numbers on actual piracy are way out of the realm of possible statistical analysis.
That being said, not getting security updates can cause problems for the Internet as a whole, not to mention for valid Windows users as pirate machines which can't be patched propigate viruses. That is more than just a problem for the people with bootleg'd copies themselves, that causes network congestion and performance problems for valid users as well. I know my Apache logs are still crammed with exploit attempts...
It's a question of responsibility vs. assisting lawbreakers. My (personal, humble) opinion is that Microsoft should allow security patches to all copies of Windows as it defeats expliots and worms/virii much quicker, but as for feature upgrades and bug fixes which are not a security issue, Microsoft should withold those unless the user has a valid serial key. True seriousness about security means defeating the problem for more than just customers, it means providing a better enviroment for everyone. This, I believe, is the root of the problem in the Microsoft attitude, and it's kind of sad that the largest software company on Earth can't see far enough past their bottom line to make such a move.
No one is (or should) ask them to give away anything more than saftey.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
I don't know who the first was but notably Valve is doing this with their software through Steam. Once you register your CD key with Steam you get access to that game and mods for that game. Patches, when released, are automatically pushed to your computer (unless you specify otherwise). There are no updates to download; for example, if you go to the Counter-Strike web site and click on "downloads" you'll be directed to the Steam website.
I've read there are no keygens for Steam accounts, though I guess you could share a key if you don't play online (and limit yourself to a LAN, e.g.)
i don't know about yous guys but my "functional offsite backup copy" of xp get updates and patches
Actually there is a third option...
Microsoft quits releasing software that has so many fucking bugs and security holes.
Seriously, getting around Microsoft's restrictions on keys is so trivial even my mother could do it. Anyone who isn't already applying updates even on a pirated copy wouldn't apply them if they were openly allowed to anyway. Lazyness and apathy is more of a problem.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
If a thief breaks into your house and steals your stereo does that entitle him to the warranty if it should break? No. Should be people who steal Windows be entitled to updates, absolutely not.
Ok, i'm just gonna come out and say it, who here's running that pirated corporate version of XP Pro? I'll be the first to admit it, my computer came with XP home and i was having printer problems, a friend of mine got me a cd and i upgraded to pro fixed the problem, not even sure why though. Never had a problem with any of the usual updates and hotfixes. When SP1 was released i tried to install it but it wouldn't let me, invalid cd key, comtact microsoft piracy hotline blah, blah, 5 minutes on kazzaa and i had a keygen for "m$ xP P40 c0rp-ed" or something like that. Changed my key, installed the service pack no problem. I bet a lot of people have done the same. If your enough of a cluebie to be able to install pirated software (there are a few tricks), your probably the type of person who keeps your system patched. Its mom & pop sixpack who bought their $400 dell with XP home and open every e-mail they get that lead to massive worm outbreaks, aside from the flaws with windows and especially outlook... Hopefully SP2 will help that some, since its focus is on security (enables the firewall, pop up blocking, port closing etc), but unfortunatly those of us savvy enough to install this will be the ones least in need of it. People from todays generation need to get their parents to stop treating computers like toasters, it doesn't "just work"(macs nonwithstanding... :p).
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
One can argue the safety of the 'net (patches against worms and such), but the responsibility for any worm infestation on a computer running a pirated OS falls on the user of pirated software.
--I am Sun Tzu of the Borg. Resistance is feudal.
it is simple really. when an unsanctioned copy is made the copy becomes an outcast child and traditionally the parents and the rest of the community do not acknowledge your existence so if you are ever in a danger they can witness they will not help you. MS should not have to support unauthorized use of its software. that said, if the pirates can find a way to get access to those patches and even install them, that is fair game as well. if the outcast manages to find a way to survive on their own, then they are achieving the ultimate goal, that of preservation/survival. a world view shared by the parents and the rest of the community. they shun the outcast but not kill them. they leave it up to nature to decide the outcasts fate. obviously MS is not at all like the above imagery. MS would never consider it fair game that you have and use an unauthorized copy of windows xp. but still the outcast must fend for themselves. this is one point of view. another is where every copy of windows XP is supported by patches. simply because an unauthorized copy of windows xp can exist on a network connected to authorized copies of windows xp. now if only the authorized copies recieved patches that would leave the unauthorized copies vulnerable effectively making the whole network icnreasingly susceptible to exploitation by worms and viruses. supporting every copy by giving authorized copies several dedicated sources to download from, and the unauthorized get a lousy .torrent . this way MS gains more control over the image of its product. less negative press can occur because of exploitation simply by supporting unauthorized copies.
.. download the patches form Windows Catalogue? Or do even they not work? What about service packs?
You didn't pay for Windows, why should you get the support that paying customers get? Should RedHat continue giving support to someone who pirated their way in to their support system even after it's discovered they're not a legitimate customer? Of course not.
You don't need a Windows patch to prevent viruses. These pirates need to grow a brainstem and install anti-virus software which does just as well keeping their system clean.
Of course, they probably don't want to pay for that either. They want everything free and then when they get screwed over they act like someone owes them something.
People with legitmate copies of Windows are perfectly capable of being immune from the infected pirated copies so why should they care that pirated copies of Windows are doing overtime infecting each other?
If it's really that big of a deal, ISPs can deal with users who are infected.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
to me, it sounds like "just desserts" all around...
Hey, I just had a good idea. Is there any kind of signature, left behind on the user's computer by the various cracked versions, that a worm might be able to pick up on, or any way in general a genuine copy always differs from a cracked copy? Because if there is, then I can imagine lots of forthcoming fun and even some beneficial side effects.
I'd say from a busniess perspective as well as impact on the net, Microsoft should allow any users (pirated or not) to download security updates. Feature upgrades and the like should probably require cd-key validation.
Here. It is an interesting discussion.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Apparently, without a valid CD key, users cannot download this crap. Yeah, right, there are people who cannot click on Windows Update and whom get denied access because of an invalid key? Where are the stories of Jack Sparrow's being indicted of stealing software through MS's benevolent Windows Update service? I haven't seen any.
Microsoft lets people with installed versions of their OS freely update exploited code with patches. End of story.
Let's say there's a day when MS can somehow subvert these pirate dudes. Okay, only people who paid them can receive updates. But that really isn't going to happen.
As long as there are thousands and thousands of illegally installed versions of their OS, MS will definitely allow all with access to patches. I mean, if they didn't, that would mean checking for data, sending data, verifying it: spyware. As bad as MS is, they at least let you know when you update your Windows that no information is being sent. Why? Courtesy? They realize it's naughty to do that. For now.
But, anyway, publicity matters. These worms and shit hurt MS. As long as there are illegal copies around, MS will let their patches live free. And even if there exists a small percentage of unpaid installs, MS will provide free patches from the goodness of their hearts. Put quotations around that.
porp
and a burglar who breaks into my house at night, trips on the stairs, and breaks a leg is entitleds to sue me. holy crap. while i use os x and linux, i don't buy microsoft products, i respect their right to publish thier software under any license they see fit. and if i'm unwilling to agree to the terms, then that's my decision. all this would do is be rewarding people for breaking the law. what a stupid idea.
oh wait, there's this amnesty plan for illegals. shit, there goes that theory.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
I don't know if you are aware of this but microsoft has a list of key-codes that they give out to people who legally purchased windows, but whose key codes don't work. The list is in circulation and most "pirates" use one of the 20 key codes on this list(if they have any google searching skills at all). Effectively giving them access to the updates. This is all "second hand knowledge" of course...Of course in order to do this you first have to use the "Blue List" key code to install winndows, the use a special technique to currupt the key code value in the registry(again just google). After that you enter the activation wizard and enter in one of the key codes on the list. There you go a fully "Windows Update" friendly pirate copy of WinXP.
Creative Demolition
Why are we even discussing this stuff here? There's always going to be a way for people to change their pirate keys, just like there is now in order to install SP1 under XP. So, big deal! charlos
Patches shouldn't be locked to a valid key/licence BUT downloads from microsofts servers should.
Microsoft shouldn't have to pay bandwidth for pirates.
But if someone wants to mirror them, the patches shouldn't need to be cracked to be applied.
This benefits the net as a whole, as there are less worms. but it doens't penalise microsoft.
Frankly, I'd rather wait for some guy (like the 98se patchin' guy) to do it.
At least he has a reason to do a good job - you don't want a pissed off internet after you.
XP was supposed to be the most secure windows, yet is rife with exploits, and remote ones at that. I think that MS is in trouble for the first time! The DOJ and antitrust failed where public opinion may win - Windows is not getting better, is not getting more secure, is not winning any new converts. Their big bet is DRM, because that is the only way they see out of the mess they are in. Lock the OS down to the point of uselessness.
As I type this on my Powerbook, I've seen the future, and it's feline.
Haveing had to repair any number of these cracked lemmings 'puters' I'm sick of it..if your not willing to use a free o/s but are willing to crack the law then I'm goona give you back your virus host after a good fdisking and ..ok buhbye now thanks for the cash job.
If you cant get updates and wont run at least a hw firewall and a good av then it's your own damn fault try to think of it as a darwin web smack.
(let the you drive a car too ?)
And dont tell me "I didn't know" I dont care
Darwin Enforcement Agent
I doubt that the person that stole my car will be allowed to get free work done on the car during a recall.
Really?
;^)
*logs on to Windows Update*
*downloads some critical updates*
OH, you must mean users of the FCK key. Not those of us with the corporate edition that used a key changer and a list of corporate keys Microsoft hasn't yet banned (and no, I don't know why)
Its microsofts perogotive, theyre not in any way required to support pirated versions of their software, and why should they bother.
Because infected and unpatched instances of their software generally continue to operate for the user while clogging the net with viral traffic, serving as zombies for DDoS attacks and acting as spam forwarders.
This is damaging to legitimate customers of Microsoft's products, users of competitors' products, users of open-source products, and operators of the network infrastructure, as well as the users of unlicenced copies of their product.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Why restrict this to just software? We should extend it to any product. Stole that radio and it doesn't work? I should still be able to get it fixed under warranty. Stole that car and the radiater hose burst? No problem, take it to the dealer and have it fixed (if under warranty).
In all seriousness. I don't have a problem with them shutting off the faucett to the people who have pirated their software. No one is entitled to use an OS that they have pirated.
I won't claim innocence here because I pirated Win 98 and Win ME. Now I'm using a legit copy of XP but Microsoft would have been within their rights to deny access to updates for the versions of their OS that I ripped off.
I'm anonymous for a reason.
If you somehow download XP and use one of those pirated key, and try to update with SP1. After reboot your XP still work but the network no longer works. So you wouldnt care if the sass worm is working because you wouldnt have net access in the first place.
How dare those capitalistic bastards require that we purchase their product for us to receive the fixes their coders have labored to produce! Who's with me?!? Please fill out the petition and let them know you want a free upgrade CD NOW!
It is called the Microsoft Baseline security analyzer. It will tell you which updates you need to get and even point you to the security bulletin page to download it
did you forget to take your meds?
ok posted anonymously because i dont need the karma and i run a warez version of XP. .
When m$ released sp1 for xp, they "banned" the most commonly posted cd keys in the sp. If you were using a banned key, the sp wouldnt install. Easily fixed and bypassed, due to articles such as this
M$ key generation algorythm seems to have been broken too. There are programs that will generate LEGIT xp pro corporate keys. And windows update works JUST fine with these keys. Try it for yourself. The below link is for a keygen that works for xp pro.
Do not visit this link using IE . It will try to install spyware via activeX. Use Mozilla or another safe browswer.
should a thief who broke into your house be allowed to sue you when he trips on the loose carpet and breaks his leg?
:)
and just so we're clear, the thief is Microsoft, right?
All the pirates of M$ I've ever installed (and there have been many, though I don't use the stuff except when I have to) have had perfectly legitimate serials - just used over and over again. The only hitch is if someone's stupid enough to register a "shared" copy (don't share with these people). While the rather extreme hardware-fingerprinting online-handshake to get a key measures they put in XP put a crimp in that style, I don't remember being asked for any tracking info as I downloaded, burned to CD, and installed 20-plus patches to fix Sasser, among other things, on a client's system.
If someone uses a pirated copy of Windows, they can simply search the Knowledge Base (or watch the KB numbers in the security bulletins), download and install them. Or, better yet, build their pirated install CD to install them when the OS is installed. I work desktop support, where one of my duties is to perform OS installs. To cut down on the vulnerability time of a machine I was charged with creating a 'slipstreamed', meaning all of the updates/hotfixes/service packs are preinstalled, installation CD. Works good, too. There are many alternatives to Windows Update for the creative user/pirate. Anyone intersted in a slipstreamed distribution, check out msfn.org's forums. There are a lot of good tutorials and users who do this regularly. (Although, I'm rather liking the internet/network install that Linux offers... Up to date on install, without all the fuss!)
Excellent, this can only help alternative (eg free/open source) software. But is Microsoft that stupid? Everyone knows they love the drug dealer scheme. "Pirated" copies only helps more people get used to their products, and they know and love to allow this in "third world" countries. But those people have to work somewhere, and there is where they aim with their bribed cops.
I hope they do try to prevent "ilegit" downloads, but i doubt they will. They may try, to not look bad in public, but probably won't try very hard, so to maintain windows popularity.
If they really enforced their "IP", they probably know only them will lose. Thats one of the best incetives for whole governements and companies to make a serious consideration of free/open source software alternatives.
Artix
Your Linux, your init.
I think Msoft should allow pirated users to patch.
If technically savy enough to purchase a computer without a bundled OS and then to pirate a copy with a CD that passes initial checks then they are obviously a pretty savvy pirate.
Microsoft understands that pirates like gamers are a small but prolific group inside the computer community. I have influenced about 150 people (designed specs) in their computer purhcasing decisions and their Operating System desisions. Some of them could afford the MS tax others could not, I acted accordingly.
If Microsoft limits useability any further for this group they will be more likely to find open source alternatives and use their role as "computer nerds" to influence those around them.
Microsoft currently enjoys enormous sucess without badgering this 0.3% of the market and I think rocking the boat on this one might be quite costly.
Operating system piracy will never replace big box installation as the primary force for operating system distribution because formatting and installing a new OS is a terifying task for a new user. (Not as terrifying as choosing a Linux distro and feature set mind you but still) Also increasing CD security or required networking for use might be the change that pushes the term "evil empire" into the public consciousness.
Besides, if I owned Microsoft I wouldn't really want to give these people yet another reason to switch over to Linux.
Then you'd probably drive it into the ground. You should be more concerned with the people who actually BOUGHT your product.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Microsoft has released a tool called the MBSA (Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer) which doesn't upload vulnerable information such as your key or various registry information (THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CHECKING FOR UPDATES). This tool will tell you every security patch that your machine is needing and give you links to download. For an even better program, I suggest using HFNetChk Pro from Shavlik Technologies. You can schedule it to download security updates that windows-update doesn't even bother with! Such as Microsoft SQL, Exchange, ISA and Office. This as well does not send private information out to MS.
But then again why use Windows in the first place?? GENTOO!!!
Yeah. Because then you couldn't 0wn THEM.
;)
I think pirates should be required to buy their own firewalls.
That would stop 90% of all this shit propagating anyway.
I've got a leg license but my firewalls seem to put an end to even letting the worms be exposed to my winupdated machines.
ISO certified == THX certified
The corporate answer is ..... maybe.
Because if they're using a pirated copy of your software, they aren't using a legal copy of Linux.
Every person has a point at which they will switch. The corporation wants to get as close to that point as possible without going over.
So, they kill selected fake keys, but they don't kill them all.
They make it difficult to run a pirated copy, but not impossible.
From Microsoft's viewpoint, it's better to not get money from a pirated installation than it is to lose that machine to Linux.
Isn't the same in SP1? I heard it happened like this when SP1 came out.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
At least, not in here in NZ. Telecoms companies generally get paid per megabyte on the high speed lines, so the more data flying aroudn the better. Sure I can stop all the spam, viruses, and worms and crap at my firewall, but I've already paid for it by then.
I can't see them implementing it for flat-rate (if there is still such a thing) consumers either, because the added processing costs eat into their margins. Sounds like there's a need for a cheap packet-processing co-processor or something...
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
Say there is an outbreak of a highly contagious disease in your country, which can spread simply by breathing or something. Do you only inoculate your citizens, and skip the illegal immigrants? Only if you want to kill off your population.....
My Favourite Meme
Aren't there other tools available that one can use to keep up to date on all the security patches?
m bsahome.mspx)
For instance: Microsoft Baseline Security Analyser
(http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/tools/
Does anyone know if this is sufficient, or does Windows Update supply some patches that simply aren't available anywhere else?
_This is insane_ windows computers withouth patches become worms and spam boxs. Something that HURT other people mailbox and computer itself. If Microsoft avoid providing fix for that box, a lot of unpatched box will become zombie zealots of mafias!!!.. the result will be a much problemfull and unsecure internet!!.
For the gods sake!.. this is like breaking tires of stolen cars, cool.. stealer will collide to other car and will die, AND will die the passenger of other car.
Breaking fixes for stolen windows is unresponsable.
-Woof woof woof!
People who are running a pirated version of Windows or any other software title took full responsability when they started to do so.
Not only Microsoft but also RedHat and SuSE disallow updating your installation using their servers (cfr. RedHat Network and Yast Online Update) when you don't have a legal installation. Making, testing and publishing patches does cost money.
If someone has a pirated version of Windows and is therefore unable to update his system resulting in a system that is polluting the Internet with worms, virusses and other harmful software, he or she is fully responsible.
Microsoft may find that the total negative impact of not having these people update their systems is greater then the positive effect (people removing their pirated versions or buying a license). That could influence a decision to offer critical updates to any Windows versions with no questions asked.
They all should suffer for being idiots.
They pirate a total, absolute POS OS such as Winbloz Xtra Pathetic when they could have LEGALLY downloaded a TOTALLY FREE OS from http://distrowatch.com/ and would have never have to put up with the bullsh*t or having their computers hijacked by asshole little pukes that cause chaos and jam the internet up for the rest of us that use REAL OS's....
I have ZERO sympathy for anyone that pirates winbloz. And I have even less sympathy for anyone dumb enough to pay hard earned money for such absolute trash..
Suffer on baby....
It depends on what you call a "pirated copy of Windows". If you buy a new PC, it's probably preloaded with some version of Windows. At some point, you may decide or need to reinstall Windows, and you may not have the restore cd/dvd handy when that time comes. If you install a cracked version of Windows, same edition as the one you had before, are you a pirate? Nobody's going to steal a copy of Windows XP Home edition when they have the option of choosing any edition they want, unless they already had a legitimate right to use the Home edition and wanted to keep their conscience clean.
/.*[ui]x|.*BSD/ thing everyone's talking about."
And the Microsoft monopoly adds an interesting spin to the issue of piracy. People no longer use Windows because they want to, but because Microsofts tactics have ensured that they'll probably need to. Microsoft is actively attacking legal alternatives to Windows, through investments in litigious bastards, software patents, and false advertising campaigns. They left the realm of capitalism and the free market years ago. They took choice out of the hands of the consumer and now they get free money. I personally respect their IP but it's getting harder and harder to blame Windows pirates these days. All the other pirates can go #### themselves, but stealing Windows is like stealing water from a company that poisoned your well.
Microsoft should definitely be able block updates to pirated copies of Windows if they wish. I think if they do it'll just fuel the switch to alternative operating systems, which their other commercial offerings won't run on. If they're confident that everyone that pirates Windows pirates the rest of their stuff as well, and they don't think giving alternative operating systems a foothold is going to be bad for their future, then they should go ahead.
But if you think about it, the most monopolistic action they could take would be to ALLOW pirated copies of Windows to be updated. It'd slow the adoption of alternative operating systems, and help keep estimates of worm and virus infection rates that so often make the news as low as possible. If the rates of Windows exploitation increases dramatically, people aren't going to think, "Oh, those are mostly just pirates who are being affected," they'll think, "Windows is looking less secure than ever before and look, I just got another dozen virus infected emails over my lunch break, maybe I should try this
The short answer? No. I paid for my copy. Isn't allowing them to download the patches and service packs rewarding criminal activity? What about all the honest people out there who have to pay for their dishonesty? I have as much sympathy for them as for those people out there who don't take care of their computers....absolutely none.
Requiem
This is a public policy issue.
The fact is that piracy levels are there. If updates against these critical security issues are not publically available, then the infected pirated machines are a social nuisance. These people are unlikely to buy a legitimate version anyway.
However, it should stop at critical issues: anything related to bug fixes or performance or reliability issues only available to licensed users.
Look at some of the AV companies: they do provide free disinfectant tools for critical issues: you can download and use these even if you are not the AV customer. However, if you want true AV support, then you do need to buy the product for the licensed updates.
It's free so you don't have to steal it.
Every pirated version of 95, 98, ME, 2000, and XP I have ever used has no problem with Windows Update. The only issue ever has been the XPSP1 initial corp key which was easily fixed by changing your key. Nowadays everyone uses the 6-in-1 or 8-in-1 CDs that include all versions (MSDN, Pro, Home, etc) and one even includes Partition Magic on the bootable CD, how's that for the best damn feature ever! Never had an issue at all.. MS doesn't care about the pirates, it builds mindshare and they know if they made things too difficult there would be that much more incentive for everyone to switch to Linux.
For all those who ranted about this being good for Free Software... how many of those pirates are FS users who do not wish to pay MS?
The ways of buying a computer without a valid windows copy are limited: you buy a linux pc or you buy seperate parts. The first group already has FS and the second group are just a small percentage.
If you swipe something from a store, then come back to complain when it breaks, you would get laughed at. So what makes it much more different from pirating software and then wanting the company to fix it for you when its broken, even if it is an easy solution that already exists?
One problem wth validation of these keys is the key generators generate a bunch of VALID keys, and Microsoft cannot check if the key was legally bought or generated by a keygenerator.
So, should they block any key that does not appear to be valid? Should they block updates comming from 2 different ISPs? No. They CANNOT check which one got the printed manual and license tag.
(Untill Bush adds software piracy to terrorism and removes the right to privacy makeing FBI raid every home in the us.)
Look, whether or not it would be a good idea in theory, there's no way to make it work in practice. There's nothing stopping Microsoft from using the data of pirated computers to track down and prosecute those pirates. So if you have a cracked version, you'd be an idiot to get updates through Microsoft. And there's no way they're going to go through the expense of setting up a seperate, anonymous distribution channel just for pirates.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Go to the Microsoft download center. Use the Microsoft Network Security Hotfix Checker Tool
Or better yet, use the Microsoft Security Baseline Analyzer Tool which includes Hfnetchk.exe.
Windows Update actually deletes downloaded updates once they're installed. You can try to retrieve them before they're installed. But it's easier to just download them from the download center. That way you can qchain 'em if you do a reinstall.
If the pirates' "evaluation" of Windows prompts them to get Windows updates, I think it's fair to say that they find Windows useful and will continue to use it. Microsoft can then just ask for a CC# and charge them the full price of the software (Windows, Office, etc.) and allow them to download the patches.
I think that most people who regularly use Windows will rather pay and get the patches than not pay and risk leaving their system (and data) vulnerable. The possibility of that next worm or virus wiping out the hard drive should be enough incentive for people to pay for their software.
I know people with pirated windows, and they download all the security updates, straight frmo microsofts site. MS makes them available to everyone. You just can't get them off windows update. You can still find them by searching through the site the old fashoined way though.
Otherwise, people would become fed up of being infected OR having to pay high license fees and would consider an alternative to Windows.
Windows wouldn't have the same success if it was impossible to pirate it.
this seem only fair since providing service to pirates will only encourage piracy and shrink their market share. On the other hand since you get value out of not being bombarded with viruses and virus spawned spam you of course are happy to pay this small fee even if you install linux.
what do you think? How much would you pay to get MS to do this?
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/tools/mb sahome.mspx
"I'm Feeling Lucky", even.
So we have it folks. People on here pretty much saying its Microsofts (oops...sorry...M$) fault for people stealing their software, and somehow they should be made to pay for it. Look, this software is STOLEN. Microsoft owes these thieves nothing.
I have a better idea. Microsoft should set the updates to automatically remove the operating system from anyone who is not a legit user. Not touching the data, just the system files. That way these thieves will not be able to spew forth more worms onto the net. That way they reclaim their stolen property.
I bet you dont start bleating away when a flaw is found in Apache or sshd do you? Oh no...these products have been produced insecurely so they must be made to PAY, must they not? Why dont you bleat about Red Hat not providing support to those not on RHN? These people got a Red Hat product, they should be supported by Red Hat? No, of course not, different rules for FOSS isnt it?
The real problem comes to when installing service packs to Windoze XP. Normally, when you have a cracked edition of XP, you never activate it on the net. Tho', when installing a service pack, it requires to re-activate the account (even if not yet activated). After you installed the package, you cannot start up windows without activating it, which leaves you with a totally unusable version...
If you have a "valid" corp key for you no Activation corp copy of XP.
.... but I doubt they can stop it totally.
as soon (or slightly before if memory serves?) their was a number of work arounds for the 'keys' m$ disabled with SP1,
I have a large number of 'friends' running XP pro with corp 'keys' and all have been able to use windows update without much difficulty.. other than changing keys for SP1 but no biggie.
of course for the slightly less 'advanced' warez copy users out there they may have difficulties.
As long as all the people in China and other SE Asian countries refuse / can't afford to pay M$ prices for software 'fixes' for m$ anti piracy efforts seem likely to presist. M$ can 'raise the bar' for how much work it is to successfully pirate and then update their os
actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.
It it's clear that MS has no obligation to support stolen software. If you steal property you should be ready for some kind of problems.
Yet I see that the point is that MS is making a mistake in not giving security fixes to everyone.
Here's why: There will be millions of pirated XP's also in future. They will have trouble in fixing their system. During that period they are harming the network experience of all of us. And they do have a significant effect, because of their huge amount. Finally they find a solution from firewalls or installing other OS's, such as Linux or OS/X !
If 50% of worlds PC's carry pirated XP and 10 % of those will end up in moving to Linux, we will have quite a boost for Linux ! I don't mind that..
microsoft should stop being such fucking jews about their software. by not allowing pirated versions of windows to not be able to update with windows update they are just helping these type of problems. i have always ran pirated versions of windows at HOME, but work is a total different story. i am mainly a *nix person, but lately i have been dealing with ms more and more. i can tell you that they get their money, they should stop bitching. they make so much money off this crappy software that breaks all the time, and the users just accept it. thats the only thing i dislike about ms. i believe its a good desktop OS, but thats it. server world should be left to the real os's. anyways. thats my 2 cent.
\x69 \x68\x69\x64 \x74\x68\x65 \x62\x6f\x64\x69\x65\x73 \x69\x6e \x74\x68\x65 \x66\x72\x65\x65\x7a\x65\x72
I downloaded the Sasser removal tool and the LSASS patch with Mozilla earlier today, what the hell are you guys jabbering on about now?
If the Microsoft PR machine is smart they'll withhold security updates from pirated copies. Then they can blame the spread of viruses and worms on the evil software pirates who are running the insecure systems.
How many people have valid licenses but don't use valid cd keys? For instance, does Dell give cd keys for their products? Having an invalid cd key does not necesarily mean the product is pirated.
Never have 5 letters been so popular...
It astounds me that people actually part with money for windows. If you're smart enough to get the corporate version then you should be smart enough by now to use a different key. When will microsoft learn? When you build a decent OS and sell it for a reasonable competitive price, maybe prices will go down.
You moved your mouse. Please restart Windows for changes to take effect.
Believe or not, the NT server product key will accept all 1's. I don't know why Microsoft did that, but it seems to contradict anti-piracy tactics. It almost seems intentional. But if you don't believe me, just give a try.
Man oh man...
It really is so sad to see that so very many people just flat out 'don't get it' and most likely never will.
Microsoft cares about one thing, and ONLY one thing. Separating you from as much of your hard earned money as possible, as frequently as possible, with any excuse they can find to do that.
I run W98SE and Vector Linux in a dual-boot config. On a machine that, by most people's lights, ought to have been thrown out long ago. A P-300 with 128MB.
I will *never* run Windows XP. Never.
If anybody thinks that it is 'perfectly ok' to tell a legal and paying customer that 'so sorry dude, but your brand-new computer is turning into a doorstop if you don't call us in 30 days...' what rock have YOU been living under bro?
Hello? The typical 'retail' price of XP is usd$300. For that you get the 'right' to call Microsoft within 30-days or have your 'Operating System' (Linux is an Operating System - XP is a joke) just quit functioning.
Don't even start with the whole 'anti-piracy' bit either. It is simply not even relevant. There is always going to be at least some degree of piracy. Nothing to be done about that. But, Microsoft being the greedy pigs they are, have found a way to track people via the 'activation' and 'upgrade' bit that don't even give it a second thought.
Not the end users....well that is to be expected.
Not the Corporate CIO's... they just shrug their shoulders when the latest virus/worm/whatever takes down their systems world-wide...AGAIN...
Nobody cares...
Like sheep to the slaughter. Running a joke of an OS that isn't even an OS. Security holes you could drive a mack truck through and Microsoft just refuses to do anything about them.
I sit back and just laugh...
You guys take it far too seriously. Don't get XP. Don't get the security holes. Simple. There is no law that says you HAVE to have the absolute latest version from Microsoft. Even if that is what they tell you.
Better yet, ditch MS completely and go to a Mac running OS X or just a straight up Linux box. Go to Walmart.com and tell me what you see in the computer section...
laughing... yep... just ditch M$ completely and you don't have to worry about any silly worms.
How much more 'mainstream' does Linux have to get before people quit ragging on every little detail? Far as I am concerned if you can buy a 'pre-installed' system at Walmart.com that is about as 'mainstream' as you can get. Come on people.
Wake up and smell the java already.....speaking of which I need to brew up a pot...
laughing...
get a clue folks...
What have you done to make the world a better place today? Got 30 seconds? Feed somebody. http://www.thehungersite.co
here who think viruses and worms affect everyone but the infected?
If you can't protect yourself from malicious softaware, how useful is your pirated OS?
Yeah, I fear so much from all the unpatched Windows OS's. When I obtain a crack for something, I fully expect to have to consent to infection. I then disinfect, which is not that hard, considering I visit MS frequently to get the latest patches. If you are stupid, and use a pirated OS, and then download cracks all the time, and your PC ceases to function as a labor-saving device, I have little pity.
I would do as MS is doing - you steal my stuff, FU. MS works for their customers, and should not spend one cent of my license fee supporting the a$$ who stole the product. Since I update my OS regularly, use a firewall, and know what the fuck I am doing, why do I care if Khalib Mostowkavski got his XP from Xhing-Shou or MS? If half of China grinds to a halt because MS doesn't patch stolen OS's, well, I guess that just shows China how stupid they are, for thinking they can rip off the rest of the world indefinitely with no consequences, huh?
Im against M$, but I say: No support if you do not pay! Arent that obvious? If networks crawl cause of worms, spreading from Pirated Windows installations.. What does this has to do with Micro$oft? .. Maybe the ISPs should add a Micro$oft tax and pay M$ to let pirated windows instances to use micro$oft update?
I use do not like the idea of any M$ tax, but in what intrest is it to any company to support pirated software?
If you pirate your software, you have to find your patches elseware, as you did with your software!
When I pirat/buy software I do it couse "I dont realy need this crap"/"I want the manual + support". Easy, if I want a manual (Shame: Micro$oft theres no MANUALS included in WinXP) and support I buy the software!
And its actualy pretty simple for ISPs to disconnect compromized systems. And maybe they could try to charge M$ for the damange (the customer wont be happy). But I do not think M$ would pay if they findout that the user are using a pirated version.
Oky, this sounds like a long "Go Micro$oft".. But its not, I could have picked "Apple" or any other software company out there. Only the question was is M$ would let pirats download updates for the good of the net.
Ofcourse it would do good if M$ did this, but I cant see in my wildest dream WHY they should.
95% of Windows installations here in Latvia are from pirated CD. WindowsUpdate works fine for them. Installing and updating of pirated software is eevryday duty of 95% of IT-people in eastern europe.
I feel utterly stupid. I never really got it as to why som many computers wore unpatched running XP. Since XP has an autoupdate i presumed that the users was updated. Now it becomes chrystal clear to me. The amount of pirated and unpatched machines must be staggering.
I do think that witholding security updates is bad for MS reputation since they get the blame, not the pirates.
HTTP/1.1 400
" Customers without Service Contracts
Customers who purchase direct from Cisco but who do not hold a Cisco service contract and customers who purchase through third-party vendors but are unsuccessful at obtaining fixed software through their point of sale should get their upgrades by contacting the Cisco Technical Assistance Center (TAC). [...]"
So in their case, you get the software upgrades, no strings attached. It'd be nice to see Microsoft continue to do the same, for the greater good.
REM MY Windows Piracy Solution
echo "You're an idiot, try purchasing Windows if you want support!"
format c:
format d:
format e:
REM We'll let any other drives keep their data, this time.
echo "Thank you for using Windows Update, the FBI will be crashing through your windows shortly."
"Why do you consent to live in ignorance and fear?" - Bad Religion
I was amazed at how easy it was to get a new key.
He just rang up and said his key says someone else is using it and they just gave him a new one after having a machine key generated. Didn't ask him any personal details.
and now maybe the people with unlicensed versions of windows will pay up. and maybe they'll look at alternatives.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
I've also heard that WPA doesn't really work either, so you can lend your retail CD and key to all your friends without any installation problems.
What MS did do was block the two keys most commonly used by pirates, including the FCKGW- one that escaped from Dell. SP1 won't install if you used this key, so you have to reinstall with a random key or patch a random key into the existing installation - do a Google, it's quite easy.
Posting anonymously for obvious reasons.
I don't think they can. MS claim pirated copies can't use Windows Update. In fact, they can provided they're not running one of two commonly used pirate keys. The keygen that came out in late 2001 blew WPA wide open, and they know it.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Every time there are these kind of virii and worms, my friend Edgar is happy. His job is to provide tech support and he charges for every computer he disinfects.
So: Would we treat somebody in a hospital because he caught an infectious disease while doing something illegal? Yes. Then, the same should be true for patches.
This can only be a good thing (if you think hurting Microsoft's market share is a good thing).
You just know there's going to be tons of perfectly legitimate Windows installs where, for one reason or another, the saved license key will be missing or corrupted (Am I the only one who's had to deal with a damaged registry?).
That will just lead to people being even more frustrated at Microsoft.
Then again, what do I know... I wouldn't have thought that most people would accept the XP registration system
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
There are these great free patches that fix a Windows PC right up. You can get them at redhat.com, mandrake.com, debian.org, and several others. We should be giving people THOSE patches, rather than Microsofts' fix-more-problems-than-they-solve patches.
If you read the EULA for various security updates, they enable Product Activation on versions of Windows that didn't already have it. But I could be totally wrong.
Any thoughts?
When did Your Rights Online become Your Rights to Steal Stuff Online?
Most virusses work not by exploiting bugs in software but by exploiting dumbass users into opening attachments from people they've never heard of. Assuming most people who have Windows illegally installed know enough about computers to get the illegal copy and install it you'd be targetting the wrong group of people. Most virusses seem to florish on the systems of dumbass corporate users or yer average grandparent.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
You could say that the pirates get what they pay for.
You could also say that Microsoft has no obligation to support those who steal.
Fact is, these pirated systems are effecting all of us.
Just because someone is "savvy" enough to lay hands on a pirated windows cd or download a crack/keygen does not mean they are savvy enough to patch their system through those same channels.
Look at Thailand or China. You can walk down the street and buy CD's full of all the hot warez from the street vendors who sell them from carts in plain view.
You think they sell Windows XP SP1?
And do you think it's a mere coincidence that Asia, South America and Ex Soviet Block countries have such huge traffic in spam?
With the inherent security holes and rampant worm situation, I think Microsoft is being criminally negligent by NOT providing patches to anyone and everyone who runs their product, regardless of how that copy was acquired.
Their negligence does nothing to correct the pirating situation and harms everyone that uses MS Windows by allowing these worms to spread unchecked. Additionally it hurts the the remainder of the net who has to deal with DoS attacks and the overwhelming amount of spam caused by unpatched Windows machines.
This question's answer is really quite obvious if you move it into a real-world scenario:
"Should drug users be allowed to receive treatment in a hospital (public or private) even if treatment is due to drug-related illness or injury? Or do they get what they deserve and have to fend for themselves?"
People who pirate do it for a myriad of reasons. How about the poor inner-cities child whose family can barely afford the $299 Wal-Mart PC and has no chance of a retail priced copy of Windows and Office? How about the elderly grandmother whos well-meaning grandson hooked her up with the latest copy of XP Home because it had larger fonts and buttons than her legally licensed copy of 95 did?
Support for Windows should be user agnostic. I've said many many times in the past, someday the laws of this country will recognize that computer professionals need the same legal protection that priests and doctors currently enjoy. People who have computer problems need to know they can get them fixed without worrying about the tech turning around and reporting them to the BSA or DOJ. Otherwise, they will sit on the problem and contribute to a greater harm.
If Microsoft wants to exclude pirates users from receiving assistance, then they should be legally liable for any further or collateral injury that occurs as a result of this...the same way a doctor or nurse would be liable for turning away a mental patient complaining of "voices telling me to do bad things" who then goes on to murder someone.
The simplest thing for Microsoft to do is drop the whole cockamamie "Windows Update" bullcrap and just post the damn updates on an FTP or website where people can download them without handing over Product IDs (and from other operating systems as well). If they don't want to do this, well, then let's make sure they they are responsible for whatever happens.
- JoeShmoe
.
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
I would have thought that Microsoft actually like to have pirated copies of windows out there. If everyone is running windows, then it will be very hard for other operating systems to get a foot hold, where as, if they alienate everyone not running a legit copy of windows, then they will either have to pay, or turn to an alternative. If they stop using windows, then windows stops being the defacto standard and that is currently microsoft's big advantage on the market.
Should they provide support to people that pirate their products? No. But if it means losing out on their user base; shouldn't they?
You can find most of what you're looking for by going to the various bug advisories. Google is your friend if you're not sure of the location on MS. Sure, WindowsUpdate is a one stop shop and is convenient. There are at least two tools that will scan your machine and let you know what patches are required.
One is by MS and another by Shavlik Technologies. Each downloads an XML file with the various bugs and the fixes.
However, I have to test every patch before I deploy it, mainly so workstation don't go belly up. This place run on email and an AS/400 or 11. This means every platform. (NT Srv, NT Wks, 2000 pro and srv, XP, 2003). The only way I can do this is to have a damn CD filled with the raw patches and install by hand.
Only then do they get approved for deployment.
Also, having the CD (and a central download souce for myself), is good for giving a copy to users when they come a week after the latest virus/worm and tell me "my home PC doesn't work any more".
I don't trust users to run WindowsUpdate and 99% are never going to have admin privlidges to thier work machine. It's already hard enough to keep control without users. (Cue Basil Fawlty-esqu: It's a great network, except for all those bloody users).
If this all seams a bit jumbled, I haven't had my coffee quotient yet this morning and I'm still a little jumpy.
Q:I was listening to a CD in Grip and it sounded horrible! What's up? A:Perhaps you are listening to country music
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I wonder about the expense in time and effort involved in keeping patches from illegitimate users. At my college, at least, there would be a huge strain on the computing assistants. They'd have to explain exactly why they couldn't fix the computer and why they wouldn't allow it back on the network until it had been fixed (MUCH more time than just patching the darn things). They'd also have to provide advice about switching to a more affordable, if maybe more difficult to use, OS (prohibitive cost is the only reason I, at least, would pirate software). I'm not saying that pirate users deserve this kind of support, but it would be such a big deal to lack it that MS's image would surely suffer with the people who have been oblivious to its ugly practices in the past, because they'll be the ones waiting and paying for all this extra support time.
There is no other version of Windows XP that I will install. Windows XP Corp requires no activation. So, when someone pays me to fix their computer and I have to format it, I generate a key and install the Corporate Edition. Why? Because I don't feel like activating. Why else? Because I don't feel like activating. Activation is a pain in the ass.
Oh ya, I have never had trouble downloading an update for a corporate edition where the key was generated using a common crack available all over the Internet. Even on my laptop, which came with a legitimate XP copy, I use the pirated Corporate version. Why? Because I don't ####### feel like activating.
On my home computer, though I can download a legitimite XP copy for free from my school, I have pirated Corporate Edition. Why? Because activation is annoying.
Activation is like... When you buy a new car and install an exhaust, or change the oil, you have to call the maker and request permission to start it.
I will not use any software that requires activation unless it is entirely easy to circumvent. When it becomes hard, I will switch to a free alternative. The software industry is slowly forcing me to open source.. ie.. Adobe with Photoshop (Gimp instead), Symantec with Antivirus (whatever the hell the free version is called instead)...
But only if they show their illegal alien's driver's license!
What if I stole a ford explorer and then took it to the dealer to replace the tires because they were recalled? I'd look like an idiot. I could say to the dealer "well me driving on the road with these bad firestones is unsafe to everybody" and he'd retort back "yeah...and you stole this car!" Just because everyone hates microsoft, doesn't mean they should be expected to support products that are stolen. Even though we're dealing with software and the cost to them for stealing is zilch, they still have to pay for the bandwidth and servers to host windows update.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Of course they shouldn't be enabled in their pirating.
I say give 'em the patches only to reel 'em in then send 'em to the slammer!
Lazy, free-loading pigs.
...make sure that people with pirated versions of ANY version of windows /don't/ get any updates...
That would just serve to show microsoft the truth... There are a lot of pirated windows installs out there. I wouldn't be amazed if microsoft keeps that as part of their strategy (people with pirated windows installs may buy software, AND expect software companies to release windows versions of programs).
And if all those pirated windows installs become virus- and worm-nests, ISPs soon would loose trust in microsoft and refuse service to windows computers. That would damage microsofts position severely.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
(not the same AC, btw).
He said he doesn't have ethical problems. He never said he didn't have legal problems with it.
Your marriage contract (pre-nups or whatever) doesn't change every time your wife cooks for you.
:-)
sleeps with you...
washes your clothes...
or any other implied "services".
Then again... the longer you are married, the more she'll get when you divorce her. Sooo... the longer you use windows, the more Microsoft owns your computer!
-Don.
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
First it's healthcare for illegal immigrants, now it's patches for pirates. What's next?
I only have Linux machines and I was able to download the updates from Microsofts own security advisary pages without any problems (links found through earlier slashdot story).
I have then made CDs containing Symantecs Sasser removal tool and the hotfix for both Windows 2000 and XP and made copies to pass around to friends and family that still run Windows.
So even if Windows Update requires a valid key for Windows XP users, the updates are still readily available. Albeit, not quite as easy as Windows Update, but if you run pirated software, you deserve to suffer just a bit.
I'd like to point out to everybody that this is a moot point. You CAN get the update regardless of version a regardless of whether you have pirated your copy of XP. Just see: this to download the appropriate version of the update.
MS business model: Punish all customers because some of them are criminals.
If your stupid enough to steal something, you shouldn't be able to get updates. This is like stealing a car and then going back to the owner for help fixing the car. It's just stupid.
I believe that people's licenses on things they create should be respected. Just as I prefer and respect Free Software, some people prefer proprietary software. When you disobey the license by not paying you're in violation and you don't deserve the priviledges (if any) that the license grants you.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
Who modded this flamebait tripe as "insightful"?
Perhaps you were ignorant of the fact, but:
- according to the Business Software Alliance.Q: If I steal a car, and some defect in that car leads to my injury, can I sue GM and win?
A: Definitely Yes.
Why is this different?
I know it's different because right now we can't sue MS for any damages even if we didn't steal Windows.
It seems to me that if they apply a double standard to products acquired legally vs. products that aren't legal, they are opening themselves up to some sort of implied warrantability for the legal product. Which of course they don't want to do.
It has gotten *really* bad with all the spyware, malware, and viruses these days. It's starting to look like the "death of a thousand cuts" we hear so much about. I wonder how many of these worms, etc. are put out there with the goal of bringing MS down?
I know, I know, you say "But these beggars and thieves have stolen from the rich man! Why should the rich man do them a favor?" But take a hard look at the rich man (Microsoft). Hasn't he, who has hoarded so much for himself, taken wealth away from so many other people to achieve his own wealth? Some might argue that because the wealthy man has accumulated his resources in a lawful manner the money is rightfully his. Perhaps charging exorbitant prices for your product is lawful, but does that make it just? And hasn't this rich man have a long record of acting in vicious ways to ensure that they can continue to hoard their treasures? The rich man is nothing but a well-dressed scoundrel who conceals his true inner nature.
The way I see it, Microsoft has an obligation to service the people with pirated copies. They have profited handsomely from society and it's laws that have allowed them to become corporate behemoths. It's time for them to give back.
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
Seriously, if these people have mannaged to make it this far without using SP1 update, then there allready prey for all the nastyness going around with windows XP unpatched (code red will still get them for goodness sakes! Let alone MSBlast)
If they knew enough to manually find and download the non-windows update fixes, then they can do it for Sasser.
If they knew enough to install SP1 update (with a fake corp CD-key, or some other techno-wizardry I'm unaware of) then windows update still works perfectly well for them and it's a non-issue.
So to summarize
1-Unpatched lamers are remaining unpathced lamres (and plagues upon the internet who should be shot! or at least disconnected)
2-Sneaky lamers grab there patches from security bullitins and don't need windows update
3-'1337 hax0rs' have SP1 installed and windows update is working fine for them
Did I miss anyone?
-Millions of Monkeys, Millions of typewriters, 6 hours of sorting through faeces encrusted pages to find: This post
imho: I can only ethically assume that company's fee is for a support contract. And their update site is an extentsion of that support contract.
In order for people not subscribed to a support contract to receive updates, they might consider that they might find their updates and fixes outside the zone of the support contract site.
If one is to aquire the media outside of the support contract, then they should use the same means to get the updates to their unsupported software.
Of course the flaw to this, and the product of a closed source license, is the difficulty for fixes to be made by any other than those who provide the support contract.
It is not the responsibility of that company to provide support to those who are not paying them, any more than it is the responsibility of a free community to cripple their products in manners that ensure the safety of the rest of the world.
Meh
If there is an unpatched Windows machine causing problems on the network, the ISPs should simply enforce their terms of service and disconnect the offending machine, whether the software is pirated or not.
And no, I can't think of a good reason for pirates being supplied with free upgrades.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Did somebody break into MS's headquarter and steal the master disks? You mean MS no longer possess the master disk?
Oooh. Wait. I'll bet you mean people made an unauthorized copy. Oh. I get what you're saying.
Phew. For a moment there, I thought MS lost windows XP.
Wow. You sure get the vapors over people copying XP without MS's permission. You should get over it and not worry so much about it.
I'll bet you're a staunch bush supporter, too! You share his same thought processes.
Personally, if I were a PR at Microsoft, I'd be giving those patches away. The less overall damage systems running Windows would get because of security exploits, the best the PR. Furthermore, it would allow me to give the possibility to give the "we care" speech...
On the other hand, as an Open Source advocate as I am, I believe these issues should be exploited to the maximum. Not only is most Open Source software more immune to such problems but the patching speed is of critical importance for most enterprise users, and as far as I'm concerned, that would be the main entry point into the household.
Fortunately people that pirate windows are also pirating antivirus/firewall programs so this isnt even an issue.
"It's perfectly reasonable to block certain types of packets during times of need."
It's perfectly reasonable to block certain types of civil rights when we are at war.
It's prefectly reasonable to put japanese americans in an internment camp if Japan attacks us.
It's perfectly to strip search swarthy men before they get on airplaces because there are terrorists in the world.
Up until recently I didn't understand these things. I didn't believe people could act and think so irrationally. Now it becomes clear that reasonablness is very uncommon in people, and you, my friend, are living proof.
I think the name "Devil's Own" probably refers to an MS Inside copy (the devil's own CD Key).
That aside, Devil's Own disappeared about 30 days after SP1. There are tons of corporate keys out there nowadays. I doubt MS can do anything about it. Nonetheless, I'm curious what will happen with SP2. I'll patch my VMWare partition first to see what happens.
Then I'll wait another 30 days to patch my main machine and see what pirate versions are out there.
" if they tracked everybody who didn't have a valid license and then tried to sue said user."
Yes, Imagine how MS would do suing users for $300 for a pirated copy!
I'll bet the bottom line would be greatly affected by that little manuever. What great thinking! That would sure "show them".
Wow. Amazing thought process running around in your pea brain.
I think you're smart enough to work in GW Bush's cabinet with that kind of keen insite. In fact, I'll bet you have Bush/Chaney in '04 bumper sticker on your car, and you really believe that Jesus told Bush to invade Iraq.
You are a wonder.
Get a keygen like I did. The question is moot.
I've been using pirated copies of windows 98 and 2000 and windows update worked flawlessly.
" and Windows would be cheaper and thus more easily availible"
If Piracy were completely stopped, this would not affect the price of windows one penny. Piracy actually has a net negative price on software because the manufacturer has to compete with the pirated copies.
Think it through a little more. Or better yet, read an economics book.
As to windows being more readily available, how much more "available" can it get. Its on virtually every PC in the world!
Lets see $10 billion in cash in the bank.
$50 billion in liquid assests.
Doesn't seem like they are hurting in any discernable way. Not letting pirates patch just causes more trouble for everyone else and doesn't hurt them.
Just in case let me spell it out fully:
cash: $10,000,000,000
assets: $50,000,000,000
They should switch to Free Software instead of using pirated software.
The updates are free and prompt, and the systems are much less vulnerable to begin with.
Many "pirates" can not afford to buy the music/software that they download.
(I'm not saying that this gives them any right to infringe on others' copyrights.
I'm just saying that the BSA's figures are exaggerated.)
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
a market out of balance provokes illegit behaviours, cause the dominion dictates rules that are out of order.
Webdevelopers that use an alternate OS are forced to have a copy of windows for proper testing of compatibility issues cause the vendor behind change the rules as they see fit.
If I didn't have a legit version of win2k that was bundled with my laptop, I certainly wouldn't want for pay for it because I think its their fault I need it in the first place, and it would be pirated. Next time MS makes an update that makes win2k non-compliant with future systems, I will pirate unless MS provides a free developer version. And if none of these options are possible, and I still won't buy, I will loose business and microsoft will loose on compatibility(they don't like that, they want everyone else to die by that to maintain market share, go loop).
don't worry I shall not sue msft over lost business because of damage due to their monopoly like ms financed sco's lawsuit of ibm, or should I?
There's a Win XP keygen floating around ever since SP1 disabled the FCK-something key that locked you out of your box.
You can generated *unlimited* keys.
How will 'they' ever know you have a pirated version or not if you generate your keys the way M$ does?
As stated above somewhere;
pirates tend to be more creative to get around limitations based on keys then the average Joe who buys his computer and doesn't know how and why he should patch up his system.
(about +95%-something of all M$ users)
Windows 2003 Server, last I knew, would fail when trying windowsupdate.com with a pirated version. Although there is a crack that allows you to update via Terminal Services.
Install Windows 2000, less bullshit, less fiddling, less bother infact
I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born - Ronald Reagan
Like it's already the case with the Enterprise products from SuSE (and RH, I presume).
;-)
It's only a small step from the status-quo anyway.
But it would bring a bit more honesty to the debate of the cost of running Windows vs. Linux/BSD
BTW: SuSE is (currently) very lax with regards to the licensing of their Enterprise-products. They have a "We trust you not to do silly things"-attitude.
Rainer
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
What append if a virus change the key of Windows to prevent all futur update ?
I think that in a near futur, Microsoft will not have a choice...
It all comes down to policy.
:)
Once you give in, you will create a precedent for future exploitation. Even if the action can protect a few uers in the short term, denying ther updates would be a long-term boon.
It would also encourage people to switch from Windows to something a bit safer...
OS X and Linux are sooo much better anyway.
If, as a software pirate, you believe yourself to be on some moral crusade against the "scourge of Microsoft" or the high prices of commercial software in general, then the best way to hurt those comapnies is to not buy their products - it REALLY is that simple.
The problem is that for a lot of computer users, software has become a "fashion accessory" just like a pair of designer jeans or a new mobile phone - everyone HAS to have the latest version of the latest package without stopping to think about whether there is actually a need for those additional features that the latest version provides. Right down from the warez crackers on the Internet to the end users, piracy is simply about peer pressure, nothing more.
The majority of computer users need to grow up and join the world of adults rather than sit in front of their PCs with the attitudes of schoolchildren.
There is a wealth of good quality free software for any operating system that you choose to run and while it may not, on some occasions, match up to commercial offerings, it IS free and will get better if you take the trouble to voice your dislikes and likes about it to the people that program it.
Pirates achieve one thing and one thing only - they create an excuse for large corporations to restrict the rights of ALL users in making fair use of products that they own and for those corporations to push through DRM, copy protection etc. on the basis of revenue loss and the honest users just end up paying more.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
If everybody used an up-to-date firewall, would we have this problem?
When i ordered my laptop i HAD to buy windows XP HOME with the package, which I don't even use. Instead I use XP prof, which is a pirated copy. MS forces me to buy shit I don't want, then wants more $$$$ for a different version in order for me to be legit? Blocking users from updating pirated copies of windows will just force some people to switch even more so to linux. The only reason I currently use windows is for gaming, just give me another reason not to support winblows and I will delete all my NTFS partitions.
No for various reasons:
* Why should people illegaly using software get the services as well?
* If people pirate software they should at least have to bear the consequences of running a pirated and after a while insecure software.
This "No" has some interesting side effects:
* Some people will eventually start buying MS software. I dislike MS but they should nevertheless get their money.
* Those who don't buy a valid license will suffer negative personal consequences. At first, there will be millions of infected machines worsening the effect of worms and other malware. But eventually ISPs will react and simply shut network access of those machines down until they are fixed. This is already starting to happen anyways. Eventually this will be a good thing for all alternatives to MS Windows since they become much more attractive which in turn will eventually decrease the impact of the MS monoculture on clients.
I think MS should do everything possible to make it as hard as it can be to use unlicensed windows. The'll shoot themselves in their knees but it'll be better for everyone in the long run.
He didn't exactly have an answer, other than to say they were still looking at the problem - but from what he did say MS is acutely aware of the problem.
I think my solution would be to allow security updates only. During this trip I had a long discussion with a pile of MS executives about community and /. came up more than a couple of times in the conversation ;-)
we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin
If the policy is truely that users cannot obtain the patch without a valid CD key, then what are the majority of LEGAL home users -- who have preloaded systems, and either never got or threw away their copy of the CD key -- going to do?
Will MAKE it binding
Anyone who owns a pirated copy of Windows which requires a valid CD key should probably upgrade their version of pirated windows to one which doesn't require a key.
Well we're at it, why not do warranty repairs on stolen vehicles.
This is ridiculous, you have no right to use the software. What sort of obligation does ANYONE have to help you maintain it.
Discouraging piracy is a more direct route to more sales.
They want windows, make them buy it. They might use something else rather then buy Windows, but then they weren't gonna buy Windows anyway, so you don't have any lost sales.
I tried to surrender to mycrosoft and receive the bounty, but it didn't work.
In other words stop with the "You have no right to a secure system if you have a pirated copy" responses already!
What about the right of the rest of the world to have an Internet which is not a breeding ground for worms and spam-relays?
No one would realistically allow functional updates but I can't see that allowing security updates does anything other than help everyone else, including Microsoft.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Just switch to linux, and bug those 'windoze' only application'developers' to port their tools to linux. Without a real competition, we'll likely to have this kind of silly discussions over and over again.
And if you're using a software and it's required you to pay for it, then pay for it. Or just don't use it. Using pirated copy of windows is like stealing a sack of crap with benefits of everyday exploitable life.
If MS in the future decides that patches are a premium-service (with premium license-fees), then so be it. I also think that anyone who uses MS-software should pay their price.
If you don't like their prices or their conditions turn to the alternatives.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
First NT version happened how many years ago? Every consecutive version MS has promised to make it secure, powerful and stabile. How many friggin years they still need to make one OS that delivers?
Hotfixes my ass, let's see one OS from MS where quality is something one would expect from multibillion dollar company with thousands of developers.
Let's see one modern MS OS (for x86 not PDAs!) where standard supported minimum install is below 20Mb where users can add/remove components and functionality as they please.
Preserve old classics: copy your collection onto all hard drives.
Thank you for your interest in Windows Update
Windows Update is the online extension of Windows that helps you get the most out of your computer.
You must be running a Microsoft Windows operating system in order to use Windows Update.
Last I checked all the pirated XP users simply changed their key to another volume license after sp1. It's not like they can't download patches via windows update!
When Microsoft permits that piracy copies do secure updates, it is saying: "All these years, we vitiated you in our OS, and we need your piracy because if we block you from using our OS, all you will deband to Linux, and we not need this, right?" "Then, please download more this update, and keep using Windows, but remember: One day, we will block you!" All government must require to Microsoft block ALL pirated copies!
$199 is above my threshold for a Windows purchase, however I gladly shell out $40(home) or $80(pro) for Linux. There you go Microsoft - there is my pricepoint.
Is the juice worth the sqeeze?
How about if MS detect a user has a pirated copy of Windows that they let them download a patch that does the job but also has extra code in it to pop-up a window saying "This is a pirate copy" or change the background to something similar ? Let's face it NO-ONE should be running pirated software ... some people think "Ahhh they're a big company earning shed loads of money I deserve to get something for free from them!", but this could lead to them pirating someone elses software who happens to be a one man band, spent 5 years of his life developing it and has 10 kids to feed (actually not that likely, how many computer nerds get to see women let alone breed! :-)
Piracy is bad bad bad and far to easy a thing for people to fall into in either big or little ways.
Hands up who actually owns a license for Winzip ?
Mark
Let them download and apply the patches to stop the worm on their system, and the patch then proceeds to make it where windows doesn't work anymore.
All this complaining about windows xp, and activation and stuff, why dont you ppl use windows 2000???
Why use XP at all?
OKay, so it's microsoft. But do we have to mod up this site to a 5? it's a link of serial numbers.. unlike kaaza, i can't think of a legal use for those.
I *would* agree with ya in a perfect world. But in our real world there are dialup user, free/anonymous ISPs over dialup, sometimes BIG corporate nets may get infected, and they do not have an 'ISP', instead they have some fat pipes going out, so no luck enforcing some TOS... etc etc.
I used to be a nasty pirate myself, until I saw the light. MS enforcing their 'rights' can only be a good thing, since it will shy people (at least people from poor countres) away form their products, thus making the internet safer. But for now it is simply wiser to give updates to the pirates.
cheers.
``If a program can't rewrite its own code, what good is it?'' - Mel
"Apparently" denied updates because of invalid security keys? Bull!
http://www.microsoft.com/security/There's NOTHING stopping people downloading the security updates off the beaten track, on the actual Microsoft Security Updates site. Do you think companies running thousands of machines on policy-controlled domains let every Tom, Dick and Eric run Windows Update? It's in Microsoft's best interests to put the patches up as individual downloads :)
The benefit of Windows Update and ME/XP's auto-updates is it's automation for home users. But this should really be only an option for legitimate users. If we let software pirates get full functionality of the software they steal, they win. If we are going down that route, we may as well let SCO kill Linux and forget chasing those router people who refuse to follow the GPL :)
FCKGW-RHQQ2-YXRKT-8TG6W-2B7Q8 would have been the first ticket. But devilz 0wn was faster ;)
and then there's the keygen
ed2k://|file|Windows XP key generator - xpkey.exe|49152|0f3f513801bb4e0d91f19ea3bf4f7c74|
(remove slashcode-induced spaces)
Just shut off internet access to infected machines except for access to a copy of the patch. Reaccess to the net is conditional on sucessfully applying the patch and removing the worm. If they cannot apply the patch, well then too bad and it's not our problem because they're not on the net anymore.
was XP Pro. Man did that one come back and bite me in the ass.
--
What would Bill Clinton do?
ah no, actually the spaces in the filename are good, just the hash should be devoid of spaces...
As long as the U.S. doesn't have national health care, I say let the pirate computers stew in their own filth spreading disease throughout the community. Keep libertarian capitalism pure from service pack charity.
I'd say send them a patch that uninstalls the illegal software :)
Privacy is terrorism.
Giving all patches to illegal users except those which wouldn't affect the rest of the net, but could still cause a security hole.
But any hole is a risk to the rest of us - if it's writeable, it can be used to create another spamming, DDOS'ing, crap-flooding zombie. If it's read-only, then it can either be used to find a writeable hole, or it increases costs by increasing, say, credit-card theft (chargebacks aren't totally free), ID theft (which could be used to hurt those people who know the user, or those who do business with the user), etc.
No security hole is a benign security hole.
That would explain why my net connection went down sudenly this summer and i ended up having to reinstall all the winsock stuff. No idea what happened to it or why it was corrupted, wouldn't be suprised if it was an update that broke it.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
SP1 didn't stop WinXP working. Why should I expect SP2 will?
MS should detect update attempts from pirated software and offer the opportunity to: 1) pay a fee and obtain a retroactive license; 2) get a code to access and apply the updates; 3) receive an effective amnesty for the piracy.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
If the windows install hasn't got a valid key, or it's a known pirated key, then the software is being used illegally. Windows Update should disable this machine (delete a few system files, set some registry keys - whatever) so that either it won't boot anymore, or at the very least, so that internet and LAN connections are disabled.
It's stolen software. The thief has no right to expect support. The product can't be 'taken off' them, so just render it unusable.
should users with pirated copies of Windows be allowed to download security updates?
My answer: No.
As much as I do not like the price of Windows (too high for what one gets for the money) you have to either try to restore competition in this particular market (which will lover the price of Windows to some real numbers) or change your demands and use something else (Mac, Linux, ...) or something else. It's maybe unfair there is no alternative producer of Windows but stealing does not make that better, quite contrary (helps Microsoft keep the monopoly while they have 90%+ market share also thanks to those users with illegal copies).
If users of illegal copies (they) get (with permission from Microsoft) those patches, they wont be stealing (patches) from Microsoft. But they will have screwed comparison tables "Windows vs. ProductX" in a way as "Windows are for free (0 monetary cost)". It will make them unwiling to switch (either to legal copy of Windows or legal copy of some other product be it free or commercial). Thus it'll help Microsoft to keep their unfairly acquired monopoly much longer and screw the market/economy/people/... much more. If Microsoft is going to give permissions to users of illegal copies of their products to use patches, I'll consider it anticompetitive and illegal move from them.
If [they] will be allowed to use those patches, market/economy/people may mistakenly see it as a move to the right direction (from security point of view) while the true right move - more OS diversity on desktop PCs - will be pushed away. Security will hurs, market/economy/people will hurt.
For sure, there will be short-range benefits in allowing [them] to use those patches, but in the long term I do not see it as good decision (good for market/economy/people).
hany
I have a pretty strict view of this. If one willfully (and/or knowingly) pirated an operating system: they should get no support from the manufacturer at all.
/.-ers think of Microsoft as an evil empire, there are a lot of hard working programmers working for them who do deserve to get paid. The liquid asset of that company is immaterial.
Since unpatched and vulnerable systems can wreak havoc on legitimate customers, I think the best solution is to simply disable the offending product. If you stole the OS, you have no right to use it. Force it to shut down. Don't destroy the drive or any data, just make it the ultimate in nag-ware: continually prompt on boot for a legitimate proof of purchase.
Of course, that gets into all kinds of 'big brother' bull. The end of the story is the same: pay for it. In spite of the fact that the majority of
"But what if I'm using it in a lab environment?" Well, you should have paid for your license. Don't want to pay? Microsoft offers 120-day evaluations of many of their products. These are fully functional products and can even be updated in most cases (rare exceptions such as ISA exist).
I understand hacking for the sake of hacking, but doesn't it seem wrong to you that there's not a legal use of the numbers that you are publishing?
People don't have to use MS software. Why help them do it illegally?
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
It would encourage me to get a better serial number.
Not all of us are helpless morons. I mean, except for you.
In my experience:
- if I use non-licensed version things get messy if I try to apply a major patch. Deliberate?
- little patches are ok
- Windows Update doesn't work
- with the proper license everything's fine... so far
I can't believe this question even deserves attention
YOU DIDN'T PAY FOR WINDOWS hence they DON'T OWE YOU SHIT for support, why is this so hard to understand.
Because users couldn't get updates, I've seen quite a few of them go out and buy legit copies at work. The reason being they were going to lose network access if they didn't!
Your Windows PC is my other computer.
Maybe they should start programming the viruses to check for valid CD keys ;-)
"You SHOULD have bought your laptop elsewhere and explained to the original vendor you were not buying their product because XP Home was installed and you did not want to pay for XP Home."
Yes. That would limit his choices to perhaps one or two lousy laptops.
he wants to do work, not make a statement. Please come back to the real world.
If Ford had issued a recall for the said defect and the thief did not bring their vehicle in (why would he, he'd probably be arrested), then the fault is on the "customer," not Ford. IANAL, but I don't imagine anyone convicting Ford because a criminal wouldn't bring a stolen car in to be serviced. Even if Ford did not announce the recall, I don't know if they would be liable. Passengers are at the liability of the driver. The driver was using the vehicle illegally, so I'm not sure that he would have any basis for a claim.
Let's go Hurricanes!!! 2006 Stanley Cup Champions!!!
I STILL don't get why people think downloading is their right and stealing is OK.
the people who have pirated copies and can't update their systems or the millions of "joe users" out there that are either too stupid or just plain don't care about patching their systems?
Do you think 90% of the people would buy windows if they couldn't use a "non-official" copy ? Home users simply can't afford to spend the equivalent of another computer on windows+office.
If you do not lawfully aquire an item, you have no right to possess let alone use it.
Possession of stolen property does not give you any rights to that property.
If Ford had such flaws that would cause a car to veer off course defying it's owners control, a recall would be issued and ALL owners would be elligible. Mind you, regardless if they were the 1st, 2nd 3rd or 4th owner or whether or not they had a Ford service plan or were covered under warranty.
Certainly. But all those are legal transfers. And there will never be more Fords than Ford produced.
A better analogy would be that a car thief comes to Ford, the Ford database says it's stolen and the thief wants them to fix it anyway.
An ever better one would be that a someone that created a copy of a Ford came in and wants them to repair it because the original he copied it from had a flaw, even though it's illegally made and not even an original Ford.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The question posed has striking similarities to the question of public healthcare. In the US, the EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act) requires hospitals and clinics to give life saving and stabilizing care to anyone, regardless of proof of insurance and/or ability to pay.
This is primarily a welfare service for the individual but has corporate benefits as well such as the reduction of communicable disease from those who would otherwise go untreated.
Without getting offtopic into the US healthcare system, I think the article brings up a similar point. If a software update is meant to benefit the end user only, in that it fixes or enables a new feature, that is one thing, but for the health of the public Internet, security patches that prevent malicious and communicable computer virii should be publicly available...by law.
It is more important to keep the Internet available to individuals, businesses, and research institutions as well as governments that rely upon it every day for communication and control of critical systems, than to ensure that a small percentage of the population is not illegally pirating software.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
Thats not a problem, trust me. I personally know friends of mine who have pages and pages of generated cd keys, all of which work with windows update. It takes about 5-10 minutes on google to get a working key for any Microsoft product. In fact, I think I'm the only person I know who runs a legit copy of windows, and I only do that because I have a friend who sent me a copy from the Microsoft Employee Store.
Should security updates only for worms be made available to pirated users
We can pirate people now? Cool... how do I burn me a Britney?
Why does everyone make such a big issue out of pirates not having updates/service packs. These things are so commonplace a few googles will get you there. I'm sure pirating the software is, in most cases, harder than pirating the updates. It was for me...er..I mean this guy I know...C'mon people, think about it.
is that linux doesn't have an installer that works. If it had one, I'd drop XP in a heartbeat. I need to be able to install programs, without having to spend weeks searching around for every 2 bit piece that this program needs, and good luck if it can be installed.
When an installer is for linux, then I'll switch and XP can sit on my finger and spin for all I care.
Kevin
If you come into my house to burglarize it, and I shoot you in the legs to stop you, I'm liable for your loss of future income earning potential. Think it sounds farfetched? I remember a case when I was in HS that revolved around that exact scenerio, and the burglar won.
Faulty products are faulty products. If Microsoft fails to offer a repair to a product it knows is defective. Unlike the stolen Ford, our pirate friends may have tried to get the patch and were denied it. Microsoft now has knowledge of a defective instance of the product and has knowingly refused to make the necessary safety corrections. Regardless of the legal status of the ownership, the product liability remains. The fact that the "product" is digital is what makes it not quite fit the traditional product mold. All the disclaimers won't help either,as known defects _will_ make you liable no matter what. As a PE, if I say in my contract "that's not my responsibility" but the "not by me" design is clearly faulty, I'm still liable.
If they can prove it has been stolen from them, they should notify the autorities of the theft and have the product returned to them for repair or destruction.
(I'm not advocating piracy - I have legal copies of XP - but making a patch unavailable is wrong. How would you get the sasser patch if your inet connex was down due to sasser? My parents couldn't, because I couldn't get the patch and write it to disc for them, and they own a legal copy of XP home.)
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I say that they shouldn't. Someone has to pay for that bandwidth. If people want to pirate Windows there's not a ton Microsoft can do but this is one thing they can do.
I mean I'm sure the patches would be cracked just as the OS would be.
Of course, Microsoft shouldn't have released a virus prone OS to begin with but it's an inherent flaw in their design.
Actually what I would do is only release certain patches to the world. Give and take a bit just to frustrate people enough to buy a valid license or switch to a different OS.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
A shindig at Microsoft ...
... you're right where you belong.
Slashdot discussions with MS execs...
News for nerds
Microsoft Baseline security analyzer is more or less useless. It has missed many required updates, including the one which would have prevented Blaster. If you rely solely on this application you will likely not have all the latest patches. You're much better off going through all the security alerts and download pages finding patches for whatever you have.
Unfortunately I sometimes have to do this at work. But I'm much happier with Linux at home. One button and I'm patched with latest updates my distro is offering.
Developers: We can use your help.
Microsoft know who use pirate license, but to home users they don't care. They like home user use Windows in your home's because when home user got in your job can't use outherelse....
Here's a point that some of us may be missing... How many people with a legal copy of XP actually update? If your like me you have the damed thing to update every night if possible. Then you have those epidemics where Blaster is killing the net, and these people are logging on, not downloading the patches then wonder why they got the virus and cry. WHY! Yes, you can offer free downloads for unlicensed copies but what's the percentage of the people who actually update using this? I can't decide on this matter, but figure they should give in and just do it.
This would be a moot point, if MS didn't release such insecure crap. I'm not saying that *nix is any more inherently secure, but at least it defaults to a fairly limited set of permissions. (In my experience.)
-Styopa
should users with pirated copies of Windows be allowed to download security updates?
My answer: No.
Your answer is not smart.
If you want to deny SW pirates access to new versions of Windows Media Player, Windows Movie Maker, or drivers for their video card, that's fine. But denying them security updates is harming people and businesses who did nothing wrong. Why should my domain be blasted with traffic from infected PCs running pirate copies of Windows XP? Why should my ISP have to bear the burden of traffic from those infected PCs? Why should someone playing a multiplayer FPS game get fragged because network congestion from infected PCs is causing packet loss and latency? Why should some guy who buys a new laptop at Best Buy find it infected within one minute of connecting to the net because there are countless infected machines looking for some particular flaw that his yet-to-be-patched PC has?
What you're advocating is analogous to companies refusing to fix natural gas leaks because the consumer is behind on his gas bill. Explain that to the neighbors when his house blows up and takes out their homes, cars, or family members.
Your "security through OS diversity" suggestion shows your lack of understanding of computer security. It is just a thinly veiled version of "security through obscurity." If your ISP has boxes running Windows Server 2003, FreeBSD, RedHat Linux, Suse Linux, and Windows Server 2000, a flaw in any of those could, depending on network configuration, cripple the network or render services unavailable. Every one of those boxes could be a hole through which an intruder could enter. Keeping all of those OSs up-to-date is a major chore that is likely to be neglected at times.
I bought a new HP notebook 18 months ago. Of course, due to Microsoft's anticompetitive OEM marketing agreement which has been adjudicated as illegal, I was forced to buy a copy of WinXP that I didn't need because I run Linux. Of course, I can't sell my WinXP to someone who wants to upgrade from Win98 because it's some bastardized OEM version that only works on a model of notebook PC that already shipped with XP. I'm sure they didn't do that on purpose (bastards).
I suspect there are about as many Windows pirates in the US as there are Linux notebook PC users who have a virgin Windows license. I think I'll register www.Pirate-MS-Licences.com as a place where Linux users can donate their unused licenses to pirates. When Microsoft sues me, my defense will be, "I was forced to buy this thing, and now I can't even GIVE it away? How is that not a Microsoft Tax on notebook PCs?"
>> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
Of course, if someone brought in a stolen car for servicing, would the dealership not be justified in reporting the car (and whoever brought it in) to authorities?
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
I agree that priated versions should be able to update. Most windows "legit" non powers users don't update enough as is, unless theve got the update that allows their computer to grab updates automagically. Besides, you can have all the updates that you want for a pirated version, you just have to know what your doing....microsoft should just get rid of that stupid product activation...the internet would be alot safer for all of us.
-Pizentios
I wiped the XP offering from this box too (with Debian). So here's my useless key for you to enjoy:
XVJW8-DB93F-2R2XD-XGB3D-3788D
To illustrate how crap things have become with preinstalled doze, my Sony didn't even come with a CD!
Dang, I'm still using Windows 2000.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
i hope you all get AIDS and fucking die.
that only applies to the original re-seller, not the many possible variations of re-sellers that may be down the chain (think of major distribution houses and on-line re-sellers).
So you can't really be sure all, or even most of the time.
And that speaks nothing of WinXP corporate conversion kits on the net and the now (in)famous WinXP corporate keygen, which I was happy to use and can tell you works just fine, thank-you.
Should M$ allow pirates access to Windows Updates? Well this is a loaded question.
On the one hand, one could contend that they should be allowed access to protect the rest of the net like the article says.
However, if the rest of the net is already updated, then why is there a need?
On the other hand, and this is where my opinion lies, M$ will probably let pirates get updates that contains code to diable or even track them without their knowledge.
It would seem to me that they would benifit from this, by "getting to know their enemies".
Remeber the old adage keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
As a pirate Windows user myself, I have never had problems getting updates, though I still use 98SE. (I refuse to use anything else due to the liscening).
Computing today no longer requires you to use Windows. I use Windows for playing games only. Surfing the net, hacking code, doing essays/reports I do all in my favourite *nix flavour.
The average home user has a choice now, as do the pirates. Give your money to the giant conglomorate, or support the open source community and purchase a linux distro.
I'm happy to say that the linux community will be getting my hard earned money.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
In any immunization scheme, you're not looking for perfect coverage, which is impossible- you're looking to stop common points of transmission. For every person you get, you're missing one or more. This goes for your precious citizens, as well as those nasty demihuman illegals.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
Ummm - why couldn't you manually download the patch - and run it off your local machine?
Is the issue that the autoupdate site checks the key, or the setup application itself?
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
The answer is simply "NO". OTOH I will be happy to help these poor souls out for a small fee (as in beer :) and get them going with a Linux distro.
Why do they want a free operating system that's made by Microsoft when there are soooooo many alternatives? I mean, if I'm gonna buy an OS, it'll be Mac OS X. If I'm gonna get one for free, it'll be a Linux distro.
Pirating Windows is like breaking into a Yugo that's sitting next to an unlocked Bimmer with the keys in the ignition.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
Maybe we should stop allowing access to clean needles for drug users.
Tweaktown's guide to installing SP1 even on pirated windows XP.
Other updates can be found on Security bulletin search - everything except SP1 (and updates that require SP1) will install on pirated Windows, just will take you more care and effort to select those you need. Alternately, and probably much easier except for the big download, is Autopatcher which is a downloadable which will patch everything up for you - except SP1, which needs to be installed first.
If I stole a watch from a jeweler, how happy do you think he would be if I took it back for repairs because it doesn't keep time accurately?
Microsoft's new policy of denying updates to any system with an apparently invalid product key opens a new possibility for today's viruses: changing the Window product key to a "leaked" key that isn't allowed to get updates, thus keeping the system open and vulnerable.
I've actually seen several legitimate installs of Windows denied access to Windows Update this week. All were infected with variants of Gaobot and Sasser - I haven't heard that these change the XP product key, but I wouldn't be surprised.
1. Micro$oft wishes Windows to be most-used Operating System.
2. Window$ costs a disproportionate amount.
Therefore,
3. Pirated CDs will prosper.
3.1. To support the pirate-CD population via proxy, allow any Windows installation to update itself.
Elementary, my dear Watson!
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
Wouldn't this be less of an issue if Microsoft focused building Quality into it's products?
I have pirated copies of Windoze on all my dual boot machines, sure going to the Windows update site won't work, so I just turn on auto-update. It downloads all the updates as they become available I screen them then install. Over the last few weeks I have been getting an unusually high number of updates, any one know the reason for this? Is it just Microsoft trying to stay one step ahead of the viruses?
In 2000, right before I left my then-employer, I copied the MSDN Win2K Pro disc. Since then I've installed off of that at least five times; I never have a problem getting automatic updates to work.
I'm given to understand that the MSDN library has been changed since then to make it more difficult. So the tip would be, stick to the pre-Mark 2K MSDN discs for greatest upgradeability.
My $.02: It's in the interest of everyone -- Microsoft included -- to make updates available to everybody. More zombies are bad for everybody, and perhaps more important, more MS zombies means bad press for Microsoft.
Just use the same key and don't active it, especially in a test lab where you need to scrap everything every month,
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
Is the manufacturer of the vehicle now exempt from liabilities because the car was stolen? I think not. It would have failed regardless of the owner involved.
To simply state the there is no liability of product when that product is stolen is not a valid statement. In addition, their product, stolen or not, has a negative impact upon myself who chooses not to purchase that product, or steal it, at all.
If you Pinto explodes, dousing me in flaming gasoline, there is still a product liability even if I'm riding my horse.
"OOOh if I steal a car, should I be entitled to free oil changes?!"
First off, dip shit, and oil change is not "patching" your car. It's maintenance. If MS had some online service that scanned your registry for you to make sure it was free of viruses and spyware, then yes, your analogy would work.
Second, quit comparing pirating software to stealing physical property. Unless you're a fucking idiot, you know the two are nothing alike. I have a pirated copy of WinXP along with thousands and thousands of other people. Tell me, again, how much MS made in profit last year.
On that note, save me your pathetic, "So that gives you the right to download it?!" retorts. It doesn't concern you or affect you in anyway, so move along. Hypocrites.
To answer the question "Should pirates get patches?": Yes. Why? Because they'll get it either way, and any time/money you spend trying to implement anti-piracy methods will be wasted.. because within hours a patch will be available.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
I have seen the links here to MS updarte disks they send through the mail. I've never gotten one or really looked into it yet, just wondering, do they cost any cash to get for the older systems , the 9x series, and do they require individual activation keys to use them? Reason I ask is I have some older used boxes I bought as scrap, and would like to apply the updates to them before giving them away. The ones I have given so far had disks now I am feeling guilty about giving them away, although I don't think any of them are used to go online with as far as I know so far, but still...they might sometime. And no, installing linux is not an option, these are older pentium 1's with very low ram installed, there isn't a linux OS distro that will run a GUI efficiently on something with 8 or 16 megs ram suitable for a raw noobie right out of the box, already been through that several times here with some other conversations. As soon as that happens I'll do that, but for now they go out the door with windows, whatever came on them that works. How do you get that with a used computer you got that didn't come with any disks? Or is this not "the rules" or what? I have only a very few original disks with the keys and running out fast, I think I have 2 win 95 disks left total, and zero 98. Just wondering from anyone who's gotten the mail order updates, how do they work,can you use them on multiple machines or what, does MS require a separate key for each disk shipped (no burner here to make any copies anyway of anything) and do they cost cash to get?
So I'm driving through the suburbs on trash night and I find a pretty decent PC. I take it home, boot up, and determine that it's a discarded corporate machine (from a corporation that you all would recognize) with all of the software intact.
I trash everything but the OS. I run Windows Update. I load it up with Firefox, Thunderbird, and OOO, and give it to my kid to use.
Am I a pirate?
Yeah, let the dopeheads use dirty needles. Who cares if they catch a virus and spread it.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Ayup
In order to install the patches, XP needs to be activated with a valid key. This is pretty easy to bypass -- the activation status is stored in the registry. A couple of minor changes take care of it.
It's not an issue of being able to do it.
Most legal users don't bother to update Windows. Why should we expect the pirated versions to be updated?
Would that be the Fuck George Bush (FCKGW) key?
It's the best Windows Tweaker around. And you can go into 'record' mode and save your tweaks as a
(I do this from command-line actually.)
Anyway, my point is that one of the options is "Click here to 'register' your windows". You click there and afterwards you can do windows update all you want.
Posted anon due to DMCA.
It is clearly in *my* best interest that every copy of Windows running be patched to its utmost, legal or no.
Granted, I agree that Microsoft isn't obliged to provide these updates, but they would be doing their customers a favour if they did.
"Break out the gin, and the small violin, I'm a raging success as a failure." --Firewater
"How, excatly speaking, can an ISP know which app generated which packet in a remote machine?"
Generally the sophisticated ones look at the traffic and see what it looks like. They generally guess based on the port number, contents of packets sent in the session, ip addresses, etc..
If a datastream contains HTTP/1.0 GET then it was probably sent by a webbrowser. If a datastream contains PORT 127,0,0,1,1348 then it's most likely an ftp client (in active mode). A lot of information about the application layer can be determined by looking at the contents.
NATs and Firewalls already have to determine what protocol is being used in order to make it work seemlessly (firewalls need to have an ALG [Application Level Gateway] written for a protocol, so it will know what ports to open and how to alter the outgoing packets so that it will work).
FTP for example, in order for FTP to work behind a firewall, the packet must be read and rewritten so that the firewall can open a port (it sends this port to the remote), and forward that traffic to the device behind the firewall (at a possibly different port). This is more difficult than it sounds because changing the port can alter the packet length, and you have to recompute the checksum, time out the open port, etc.. NATs also have to change the ip address in the data portion of the message.
This garbage effects small businesses as well.
They dont qualify for the 'special corporate' editions, and are forced to fight with registration on their PCs, unreasonably raising the support cost.. ( one could even argue its unfair business practice to offer the variing versions to 'preferred companies' as it gives them a slight advantage overall )
For years I've done like many, and bought retail copies for small business, but install corporate copes ( or serial numbers ) so its more practical to support..
Sure its not techically legal, but they did pay for software, and can prove it.... so Microsoft can goto hell if they complain.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
"And no, I can't think of a good reason to provide vaccination to illegal immigrants." - and then let them run rampant between the "legal" population and spread germs. Makes sense maybe in law enforcement perspective, but not from epidemiological point of view.
Considering the impact of worms to even organizations of the size of Eurpoean Commission (or eg. airlines, to pick an example that isn't a bunch of never-do-well parasites, at least not that much), it can even be a question of national-security grade.
Windows should just be forbidden.
Microsoft has no obligation whatsoever to provide any freebies to folks with illegally copied (the P word - "pirated" - seems to be politically incorrect here at Slashdot) versions of Windows.
The word you are looking for is "copy". Every copy is illegal to the eyes of MS.
Anyway, "pirate" is a stupid word to use for someone who copies a piece of software. Pirates attacked ships, robbed, raped, killed. There is a difference. Using the word "pirate" is making the assumption that making unauthorized copies of software is equivalent to killing, raping and robbing. It's just a marketing thing that was used by record companies, and it just worked. Now we are using a word that describe a killer, to talk about a person who copies a CD. Think "diamonds are forever", that's a marketing thing that just worked, even though it's not true. It sounds good, and most people who don't know better, believe it's true, while it's just a marketng thing. The problem with the "P" word is that if we keep saying that copying CDs is as bad as raping, killing and robbing, people who don't know better start to believe it's true. That's the power of the language.
In Uruguay, my country, people who don't know what they are buying, get a computer with a copy of Windows preinstalled (that trend is changing), for which Microsoft gets no money, and know nothing about licenses. I'd rather not call them pirates, just stupid.
While they have zero legal responsibility to offer anything to people that are using their products illegally.... Morally they have an obligation to do so.
It is due to 'deficiencies' in their product that is effecting millions of people.. so they should be a responsible company and offer the critical security patches ( not feature improvements ) to anyone whom asks..
Now if they start asking for your home address and tracking down IP addresses then demand proof of ownership, that a bit extreme.. Though they could do that legally..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
You argue that it would hurt Microsoft not to provide updates for pirates, and you therefore you would like them to stop. In other words you would like to see them do something really stupid.
I frankly believe that it is a waste of time to discuss what would happen if Microsoft did not provide patches, because they have no reason to do so. I hope that you agree with me that we have no legal right to stop Microsoft from providing updates to Pirates.
Just download the individual patches by number and apply them individually instead of using windowsupdate.
It's only windowsupdate that checks the reg code. (Yes! I do have a legal copy of windows (it came with the laptop I run Linux on) but I'm a geek with too much time on my hands and I had to find a way...
Cheers!
Figures. Microsoft hired some 'independant'
:)
software analyst to write sasser.
No Really, it was a completely unbiased production.
ROTFL
Whatever
You know, there are some strange parallels between this idea (provide support to users of pirated software) and the idea behind safe injection sites for drug users.
A safe injection site is an officially sanctioned building that provides a clean and monitored place for users of illegal drugs such as heroin to inject themselves. The goal is to encourage the users to shoot up there, where they can be monitored for overdoseing, and to use clean (freely provided) needles to stop the spread of infectious disease (like hepatitis). The drugs are not provided at the site; they still must be purchased illegally or elsewhere. Ie, a safe injection site is essentially a compromise between the public's distaste for addictive drugs and its concern for the health of the users. If hepatitis or AIDS gets a strong hold in a city's drug-using community then those people will likely die, and could also spread the disease to other parts of the city.
Similarly, providing patches to software, even if it's pirated, is in the interest of both the pirated user AND society as a whole.
You are right, but who said I wouldn't be more concerned with them? I don't have to be 100% focused on my customers all the time, you know (even though putting them first is very good business practice). Sometimes you have to keep an eye on your competition, and Windows' competition is Linux (customer loyalty goes a long way, but they still won't remain loyal if a competitor is obviously better in every single possible way, and you're still operating in the stone age).
Creator of the popular web game Proximity
That gives us something else to consider/worry about..
What would happen if the next virus went and changed everyone's keys? Coupled with a remote exploit, that'd bring the net, and MS's activation scheme, to it's knees.
Nope, it's not Microsoft bugs trashing the net. It's some asshole somewhere who thought it would be really cool to have lots of computers rebooting all the time (or whatever crap the latest virus does to your machine).
That's true. But it's also irrelevant.
Once the exploits are out there, the only ways to make them STOP trashing the net (short of taking out the machines) is to apply the patch. Blocking distribution of the security patch to unlicensed copies insures there will be a much larger number of infected machines chattering away than if it is open.
Selling millions of copies of software that is susceptable to infection and expecting them to remain uninfected is like laying out millions of uncovered petri dishes full of culture medium and expecting them to remain sterile. If nothing else, Microsoft bears some of the responsibility according to the doctrine of "attractive nuisance".
In case you're not aware of it: Consider a chemical company that keeps concentrated sulphuric acid in an uncovered, unfenced, outdoor tank that looks like a swimming pool. Is it the chemical company's fault if, some summer afternoon, some neighborhood kids jump in and/or push each other in? In US law: Absolutely!
By deploying a massively virus/worm susceptable system Microsoft has created an attractive nuisance. Yes the primary responsibility for damage when it is exploited rests with the exploiters. But when they "light a fire" that starts an ongoing process of consuming the neighborhood, it's Microsoft's responsibility to help put it out.
And it's in Microsoft's interest to do so, before somebody wises up and starts using the attractive nuisance doctrine to make them pay for the damage.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Apparently, without a valid CD key, users cannot download these updates.
Without a CD Key, you can't install Windows at all. With a CD Key, you can not only install Windows, but all of the updates.
I have never paid for a Microsoft product in my life, but my Windows XP is always up to date.
Not even close. If you reject the GPL (or BSD or any open license) you revert to standard copyright law: use the software any way you want but don't redistribute it. OTOH, EULAs take away fair-use legal rights.
Hence the dodge: kids can't be bound by contracts, only by laws.That is the key tenet of this argument - MS is not guilty of dumping when the actual cost of *production* per CD is quite low.
/. name - just cant remember the d*mned thing.....
Software created (lets just say once) and then put into production - millions of CDs are stamped with the SAME code!!
Therefore cost of production is eXtremely LOW!!
-
I have a
get a copy of the corp por (er, corporate professional that is) version of windows. No activation, licensed to "as many users as your company can stomach", etc. Remember, every time you pay for Microsoft software, you're promoting pure evil. When you pirate Microsoft software, it's much more like you're whacking off to it.
Actually, I would be interested to know of any laptop vendors that sell their products with no operating system pre-installed, and compare prices with Toshiba, Dell and the like.
I just checked Alienware, because I thought they came with nothing installed, but it seems they have XP Home Edition.
I forgot to mention that after using the keychanger found in the TweakXP SP1 guide, windows update will still work normally - AFAIK SP1 is the only windows update that wont work on the most common couple of pirate keys (i.e. Devils Own etc).
I thinnk it's funny how some friends that use XP illegally can't go to windowsupdate.microsoft.com and update like normal but they COULD download the baseline security scanner then download all the patches one by one - yet they are too stupid to try that.
(what do you expect, they ARE windows users lol)
That's not piracy. Piracy is killing, robbing, raping, like pirates did. Unauthorized copying of copyrighted works is not killing, raping, or robbing. Calling someone a killer because he copies CDs is not fair, although he might be coing comething worng, it has nothing to do with killing, robbing or raping.
That comparison is funded by big media companies that try to make everybody thing that people who copy CDs are reaaaaaaally baaaaaad, and should be shot or hanged, and their belongings given to these companies. Don't buy it, please.
It seems like everyone has been repeating the same ideas over and over, but I only saw one poster who came close to this. Since the security vulnerabilities that allow worms and viruses to spread are well known, why doesn't Microsoft just write their own virus that seeks out pirated copies of Windows and nukes them? Or, if they want to be nicer, just break the networking capability of the pirated systems so that other viruses won't be able to spread.
There is just one drawback: how will Microsoft's virus know whether a given MS-Windows installation is legitimate or pirated?
Who made you the 'compliance' cop?
The environment you speak about already exists!! Drugs are illegal - they are still used. Divorce USED to be looked down on - now the Divorce rate is >50%.. Children born out of wedlock was looked down on - now it is seen (by some) as a monetary means to an end.. etc., etc....etc...
---- Laws: Mans' way of ensuring that All lawyers will forever be employed....
Microsoft doesn't write Viruses, dickless little script kiddies write viruses.
Ah, I love a nice well-reasoned response.
Microsoft may not write the viruses, but they sure as hell make it way tooo easy! As evidence of this, realize that Sasser, the latest buffer overrun problem is on exactly the same port as Blaster, their last infamous buffer overrun exploit. Microsoft could not even be bothered to test other services on the same damned port.
They shouldn't be allowed to get patches and service packs because they are using stolen software. Also, they are still responsible for their own computers and thus responsible for contributing to net chaos.
Responsible people don't need to worry about this because they keep their computers updated and will continue to merrily use the net!
Pirates that have problems because they can't apply patches to their systems get no sympathy from me. In fact, if their identities can be worked out, I think they should be fined or somehow punished for causing the havoc they do. The fine should not be for using pirated software; it should be for simple negligence.
Lets say you drive a truck for a living, and you don't bother to keep it up to code. Now suppose that the truck loses it brakes, takes out a bridge and hurts someone. What do you think should happen to the truck owner? Will the excuse "but it's so expensive to keep the truck in shape" wash?
If there is an unpatched Windows machine causing problems on the network, the ISPs should simply enforce their terms of service and disconnect the offending machine, whether the software is pirated or not.
Um... then how is the user supposed to get their machine patched?
And no, I can't think of a good reason for pirates being supplied with free upgrades.
Me either, but that's not what this thread is about. An upgrade is something that adds or improves functionality, IMO; a patch fixes a mistake that never should have been there. I don't think (and neither does Microsoft) that *anyone* should get free upgrades necessarily. That's why it costs to get Windows XP even if you have a legitimate copy of Windows 2000. But believe me, after the last batch of patches I installed (which screwed something having to do with video drivers that made me boot in slow motion), it's ludicrous to call critical updates "upgrades."
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
This is about communal damage vs individual damage in the same way as needle exchange programs and condom distribution are about AIDS.
One side (you can see them in the referenced discussion list) insists that the pirates "have sinned" and deserve anything that's coming to them. The other side rightly counters that individuals aren't the only ones punished - others are impacted and that impact is worse than either the original sin or the subsequent "punishment".
As corporations are secular entities rather than religous/ethical entities (esp. MS), it doesn't appear to be prudent given the downside of preventably aiding and abetting an epidemic.
If Micro$oft really wants to get a good hold on lost revenue, maybe they should foster an "unpatched be damned" approach. They could release their operating systems with critical holes and back doors galore, even more than there is now. Next, they would only allow computers to be patched AFTER they register and activate the EULA, otherwise be damned to destruction and a life of a zombie drone computer.
Wow, maybe we're on to something here. Perhaps Micro$oft could even insert some very small print into the EULA so if you don't pay the Piper you would forfeit your machine for cluster computing! (like SETI) Wow!
doinf that for some time.
Look
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Comment removed based on user account deletion
pirate windows? but thats unpossible!
your suggesting the ISPs cut of their revinue stream? good thinking, I'm sure they'll get right on that.
Here's one, let them patch. Now they can properly maintain their machines.
There is a myriad of issues with your suggestion. talk to anyone who works in the upper levels of an ISP.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
customer loyalty goes a long way,
People who have Warezed their product are not their customers.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I say that they get their holes patched, but randomly give them a few extra bugs too, so their HD driver mangles data every 7th time, functions leak memory, or they have random crashes. This is Windows after all, and those things will just seem normal.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Someone using pirates software probably shouldn't be eligible for any kind of support BUT the line isn't that clear.
If an unpatched copy of the O/S can cause problems to the community and a patch can fix it then the issue becomes murkier.
Perhaps the solution would be some sort of counter that requires a user to re-register their software every now and again based on their internet usage? If they are registered they can get patched, if they are not then they lose network operability (except to a registration and patch server).
I know this would be an inconvenient and unpopular idea but something like this would help assure honesty and properly patched and protected systems.
No, they personally might not be, but the businesses they work for (or will eventually work for, or start up) are. If an entire generation grew up on Linux, you could bet that businesses wouldn't still be using Windows for their OS software. But since Windows is all most people know, because it's all they are exposed to (whether they pay for it or not), the businesses are compelled to use their product, since even though it's expensive, it would be cheaper than training all new hires years upon years worth of experience with another OS.
Creator of the popular web game Proximity
How about this: No!
Furthermore, Microsoft's next/future service packs (or possibly Windows Update itself) should check your key against their database to ensure that you do have a valid installation of Windows. It amazes me that they haven't gotten to this point yet.
If it was up to me, I'd generate a "hotfix" for pirated copies that wipes the product key info, and pops up that little key icon in the system tray with a balloon saying "You are using a pirated key. Click here to purchase a valid one.", and linking to Microsoft's store. Perhaps a timer is also in order, giving you 30 days(?) to set things right before networking no longer works, or the system won't go past the login screen. That sort of thing.
Yes, I'm very serious.
Let's say I steal a newer car. The manufacturer of the car discovers a fault in the hood latch; it can randomly let go of your hood-- and that would be a bad thing, especially if it happens while doing 55+ on the freeway. I go to the dealership and demand they fix the fault for free. But wait, the car is stolen! The owner called the dealership and reported it as such. Does the dealership just shrug their shoulders and fix it and send me on my way? I think not. They call the police, or simply deny me the fix.
Not All Who Wander Are Lost
I'd say that the Asians had the better grasp on the value of software: Pay for the media; that's all we paid for. Got a problem? Take it up with at the Tong head office. ;) If only Open software were as commonly distributed this way....
Besides, I think the OP's point was that the Russians were knowingly disregarding copyright, while the Asians were simply applying the rules of their local economy to foreign goods that are protected by laws that aren't realistically applied strongly in their own region. Willful participation vs. unknowing participation, not culture vs. savagery.
"You are stealing other people's hard earned work"
MS and "hard earned work" hardly seem synonymous.
Its not stealing because it didn't cost MS anything. And as I think MS should be broken up, I don't feel adding to their already large $40B in the bank is in the best interest of me, or of society.
That's not a justification; I just could care less about microsoft as a company. If they folded tomorrow, I'd get over it in about 30 minutes. Probably less.
if you can find a good corporate serial that hasnt been blocked, cool.
and activation cracks are EASY to get. astalavista anyone?
Linux is not the solution to everything. Simply having people switch over to Linux isn't going to solve the problem. People don't want Linux. They want Windows for free. It's as simple as that.
Linux is, like it or not, in a technical sense, far more advanced than Windows. Or, perhaps, "elegant", for lack of a better word. As an operating system, that is. As a development platform, Windows has some very serious gaming software, entrenched Office applications, and things like that, so there are some reasons why people want to use Windows, understandably. But in terms of technical advancement, in terms of technical superiority, so to speak, Linux, in its raw, unadulterated form, is to Windows what a Formula 1 car is to a pickup truck. (or something along those lines). Of course, the user-friendly distributions don't fit this analogy, they are "tuned down", so to speak, and easier, more comfortable to use, but the heart of the technology is not unlike the analogy.
Formula 1 cars can't be driven on the street; the oil-change intervals are not necessarily particularly impressive; they don't do very well in traffic jams, they are loud, and not particularly comfortable to drive. Not to mention that it would almost be a necessity to have a machine shop in your garage and a crew of mechanics (or a lot of spare time on your hands) if you are going to keep it in running order. But in terms of being technically superior, there is not doubt that a Formula 1 car trumps a passenger car. Most people will want a passenger car. There are Linux distributions that make this easier, but then again, that's not what a lot of people want. They want Windows, and they want it for free.
So yes, those patches should be made free. That's what the people want. If Windows is going to continue to give people what they want, why not do like Sun - allow people to download Windows for free, and install it themselves. What's wrong with that? How many people are going to actually bother to install Windows by themselves? It's not that easy; Linux is easier to install if you get a distribution that is designed to be easy to install.
There is no doubt that the patches should be free. Furthermore, Windows, if you are willing to install it yourself, should also be free. It's pretty much as simple as that. Even if MS offered, perhaps a "Windows XP Lite" for those who would like to install it themselves, they probably wouldn't lost that much business because most people would just buy a new computer with everything set up anyway. Plus, the "Home" and "Pro" editions could still cost money.
But the patches should definitely be free. Absolutely. It is ridiculous that they are not free. It's just absurd. Like that's going to discourage anyone. Oh yeah, "I won't pirate XP because I can't get security patches for it" or "I was just going to pirate XP but when I realized that security patches weren't going to be available for it, I changed my mind and went out and bought it". Suuuuure. Makes a LOT of sense to me.
Great and all, but that is just another key that MS will ban when SP2 comes out.
It strikes me as kind of funny that M$ won't let you download the patches, since http://www.microsoft.com/security/protect/ bears a link to a page that will have them snail mail you a security update CD. I had them send me one and I don't even have a PC running XP! :-P
Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in all kinds of directions. It's the only way to mak
I know of many people who did this: got a computer with windows, and returned the windows license to Microsoft (or an authorized office) for a full refund.
So.. how much does one get back from Bill when you send your licence back unused? Is it the full RRP?
Can I bum a sig? I left mine at the office.
Pirated copies of WinXP can download security updates. They, however, cannot download service packs. Any other updates can be applied with no problems
If Microsoft can identify "pirate" copies by their serial number with Windows update, the answer is simple: 1) Let them download and install important security patches to their machine. 2) Detect the pirate serial number and activate a server on that machine that is capable of distributing the security updates. 3) Have Windows Update spread download requests across your network of pirate-Windows servers. Over time, the pirates pay Microsoft for Windows with bandwidth costs, but they still feel like they're getting it for free. In the mean time they have patched boxes. Everybody wins! =)
If you unlawfully aquire property, you do not gain any rights to that property.
This is also true of stolen property, as well as unlicenced property or information. Basically anything that is not yours, and aquired without permission by the 'owner' does not carry an inheirant right to use.
Desktop Linux
What defines a pirate? If you bought a computer that came with Windows (got a valid license) and you had to reformat it but you never received a CD to re-install it, so what the hell are you going to do? You already paid a license for it.
Oh ya, piracy is robbery at high seas, not people copying content legally or illegally.
actually..... their was a key generator released awhile ago that fixes that problem
Everybody who is part of a civilized society has a duty to behave in a responsible and civilized social manner at all times.
Corporations, being made up of citizens, have to behave in a responsible and civilized social manner.
Or are you saying that belonging to a corporation suddenly absolves you of that responsibility? What about belonging to other organizations such as a church, the army, the mafia? Does irresponsible or uncivilized behaviour suddenly become acceptable if you belong to one of those?
Their advertising doesn't seem to engender the greatest confidence, either. The easily offended should turn images off [standard porn buttons].
Wikileaks, no DNS
You can BUY Windows?
I have always seen to it that the software on the networks I admin was properly licensed. Sometimes, on taking up a new job, the task was enormous.
We still got audited. So we had a double penalty of staff time: fix the problem before the audit, then prove it was fixed. Neither case advanced the organizational mission. It was pure loss, friction . All the time I was doing that, I wasn't fixing things that were broken. I wasn't making the net more secure. I wasn't installing new things.
I will grant that a company can set the terms of use for their products as they wish. They should be aware that hamfisted, user-hostile enforcement mechanisms like this are driving customers like me away. At comparable functionality, even with higher costs, I prefer the Free as in Speech solution.
Should I experience a difficult implementation due to lack of developer/test resources in an Open Source project, I experience necessary pain. That is to say, any problems I have with getting it working are a natural result of the state of the project I'm working with. Licensing friction is unnecessary pain. It's the unnatural result of the developers going out of their way to put up obstacles.
Unnecessary pain hurts way more than necessary pain for similar stimulus levels.
Gotta say, props to the commercial software outfits that have simple concurrent licensing setups that actually work. It's the ones that suck that cost you future business.
I gues i'll have to find my win2k cd when i install windows from no on instead of just logging on to #serialz, but windows piracy is the gratest hurdle to OSS adoption. If people can't fix windows if they have a pirated version, they will look at OSS.
Of course, MS knows this and won't actually crack down, they're judt trying to scare a few people into paying up.
How many times did you bring up software patents, interoperability issues and the fact that these folks are part of an abusive monopoly? I say to these execs, don't talk about slashdot; "DO THE WORLD A FAVOR AND DIE"!
Bill understands his "business" perfectly! There's more precieved customer "value" in getting a ripped copy of an expensive title than paying to get a cheaper tool that meets your needs...That's the whole reasoning for Educational discounts as well. That way there will NEVER BE market for software until MS says there is!! Even Linux "free-as-in-speech" can't compete with MS "free-as-in-cake" price! People are already being trained to be consumers of MS products rather than cocreaters of OSS type software...
The real profit is that Bill can start collecting REAL money from business that have to have connections or preasence in "civilized" countries. Items like this...limiting access to patches and such...with more tools comming soon to limit any unauthorized windows boxes...prepare the way to make them pay when the time comes. After all, what multinational is going to allow UNPATCHED machines on their international corperate network? See, MS will get the money! Over here we already pay because the BSA has beat up our empolyers, schools, churches, clubs, etc. or face stiff fines...we aren't noticing the barriers they are putting up. Look at XP, it would appear that the majority of installs are legit! that's a huge achievement from even 3 years ago. Once the asians have to connect to our networks, the mechanisms are already in place to make them pay or else!
Yes, serious security patches should be available to pirated versions.
To me this is analogous to the needle exchange program (for drug addicts) in my city -- while it would be great to stamp out the drug problem, in the meantime we need to protect the general population from the spread of HIV.
If users, surf safe, use a firewall your MS box's will never need patching!! But pirates installs should be patchable dor security but not necessarily upgrades or bug fix's.
FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Solaris (Eval), Linux. There's more than enough quality software out there for people who can't afford to pay for Windows. The funny thing is they'll be better off doing it too.
Should they get patches? No. Their machines should die the horrible unpatched death that will follow.
Brian Seppanen
Minister of Information and Propaganda
Area 54 The Secret Government Disco Labs Provo
Comment removed based on user account deletion
except that some updates requires SP1 to allow installation....
The BSA should be using their inflated figures, not only to convince people away from piracy, but using them to convince the software companies to price their products appropriately for these markets.
The drug companies got the hint and provide very expensive drugs very cheaply for these markets. How do they do this? They get their research money from the developed world, not the under-developed world. The local drug companies, who are subsidiaries of the ones you know and love, are very successful here, even with the low drug costs. (Generica Prevacid cost $3+ per pill in the USA, $0.10 here)
Why can't companies like MS recognize this? They did release some crippled versions recently for Indonesia and Thailand (I think), but that misses the point. Why would I buy a crippled Windows version for $25 or whatever it is, when I can buy the real thing for $.50?
You may want to, and legally can, call the people in my city pirates, but when there is NO other choice for them, what should they do? I know I might be flamed for supporting piracy (which I don't), but you come and live in Asia a while, and you will understand what the masses have to do.
What I am trying to do is fight piracy by helping (out of my own pocket) develop and encourage Free and Open Source Software in English and even translate it to their native languages, so piracy won't be necessary, AND they can play a part of the 21st century, instead of producing illegal drugs and terrorism.
MS does not give 2 shiets about the pirates - they are people who would not of bought the software anyways! this applies to the game pirates / movies etc - most of these "kids" can not afford these items and there for their impact on companies market share is minimal compared to the "magic" numbers these companies come up with that they would like you to beleive. Mayeb this is a sign that more companies should provide "demos!!!!!!"
MS makes it's money from volume licensing and large corpate companies!
Anyways MS has screwd up - even with pirated version on can avoid windows updates site directly and download the patches seperatly which do not seem to check for serial keys - one can even go as far as running their own windows update site from their network and provide updates. I know this as i know some people with not legal copies and have gotten updates for them with out problems simply by downloading the updates individually from MS security bulletins! Godo job ms!
You can download a better OS for free.
Retired from software... maybe. Sort of.
Honestly since when do s/w providers dictate what pirates can and can't do. Thats like telling a crook he can't break into a vault and steal it's contents. While it may be hard it is almost always do-able. Is it even worth the struggle? I say updates for all, you should have made it right the first time.
YOu don't have to use windows update...you can download the patch for your version of windows(if you can figure that out).
Here are the steps
1. go to microsoft.com
2. Click Sasser worm(important information)
3. Click instructions for windows XP(or 2000)
4. Go to step 7 and click on that link
5. Click go on the right panel to download it.
We burned them to cd to run at school...just pop it in double click....wait a little bit and then your done.
I mean how else will Microsoft find out who they are, I mean Microsoft could put some backdoors in and make it possible to find out who is stealing it.. Mmmm wait.. why does that sound like a bad idea.
Just say no to license servers!!
Based on your opinion, my answer is "not smart" and I'm experiencing "lack of understanding of computer security" but I'll still try to make your "gas leak" analogy more consistent with the situation of users running illegal (and unpatched) copies of products of Microsoft corp.
Your analogy:
"What you're advocating is analogous to companies refusing to fix natural gas leaks because the consumer is behind on his gas bill. Explain that to the neighbors when his house blows up and takes out their homes, cars, or family members."
Should IMO be:
"What you're advocating is analogous to companies refusing to fix natural gas leaks because the consumer is stealing gas from them using black-pipe illegaly connected to some official company's pipe. Explain that to the neighbors when his house blows up and takes out their homes, cars, or family members."
(and I also provide explanation for neighbours: "He is/was using our property illegaly without contract with us or permission from us. What's more, he did it without necessary technical skills and knowledge. His actions harmed you. His actions harmed also us. We should join forces and and sue him to hell. Or, if he's alredy dead, at least try to sue/educate/... other's who are like him to at least prevent such accients in future.")
From such (IMO more precise analogy) comes also maybe good advice to Microsoft, what to do with such users: If gas company discovers some illegal connection to their pipe system, they (I'm quite sure) try to
1) immediately disconnect it (or at least additionaly certify and legalize it) and then
2) sue entity responsible for it (or make them pay for work required for additional certification and legalization).
Microsoft cofounded BSA for what I undestand "pirates hunting" so they should use it to hunt down users of illegal copies of their products trying to get security patches with nice side-effect to others: less infected PCs on the Net.
As I alredy wrote: "For sure, there will be short-range benefits in allowing [them] to use those patches". That means that if patches are not provided, there is immediate harm done to innocent people. I'm experiencing that harm too. But providing those patches to those people we're talking about is (I'm repeating) not best longterm solution.
hany
"What you're advocating is analogous to companies refusing to fix natural gas leaks because the consumer is stealing gas from them using black-pipe illegaly connected to some official company's pipe. Explain that to the neighbors when his house blows up and takes out their homes, cars, or family members."
Bad analogy. Microsoft caused the security holes in Windows. In your example, the leak is implied to be the fault of an incompetent thief -- not the fault of the gas company. I used the "behind in their payments" analogy to avoid that logical fallacy. Your analogy would be valid if the SW pirates were causing security flaws by their piracy, but they are not. The flaws are in the released product.
(and I also provide explanation for neighbours: "He is/was using our property illegaly without contract with us or permission from us. What's more, he did it without necessary technical skills and knowledge.
You have no evidence whatsoever that a user of a pirated copy of Windows has less technical skill or knowledge than someone who has a purchased copy. In fact, I'd bet that the average person who has pirated Windows XP has more technical skill and knowledge than the average Windows XP user. Don't blame the end-user, whether a licensee or a SW pirate, for Microsoft's security holes.
His actions harmed you. His actions harmed also us. We should join forces and and sue him to hell.
No. The pirate's actions *may* have harmed Microsoft, but Microsofts action of creating a system specifically to deny security patches *will* harm everyone else. If Microsoft hadn't actively denied the patches to the SW pirate, then the system wouldn't be spewing viruses and costing others time, bandwidth, and money.
As I alredy wrote: "For sure, there will be short-range benefits in allowing [them] to use those patches". That means that if patches are not provided, there is immediate harm done to innocent people.
And what right does Microsoft have to inflict harm on you, me, or others who are not pirates? The Internet is like a highway. I don't care if you stole your Ford Explorer or are behind in your payments -- Ford has no right to put everyone else on the road at risk by refusing to replace the defective Firestone Wilderness A/T tires.
The whole argument in our discussion starts to remind me of arguments about guns. And this argument IMO comes down to who is responsible for shot people: shooter or gun manufacturer? I think shooter, except of specific cases when death has been caused by something like production fault of the gun, etc.
"Microsoft caused the security holes in Windows."
That's true.
But Microsoft did not connect machines of those users to the Internet. Nor did they installed their faulty OS on those machines. Nor did they powered on those PCs. ... Microsoft may be monopoly, but current situation is not that much bad as that MS is responsible for every PC on Earth. (which is of course not argument for dissasembly of anti-monopoly government bodies :)
"In fact, I'd bet that the average person who has pirated Windows XP has more technical skill and knowledge than the average Windows XP user."
That we can agree upon too.
But such supperior technical skils does not give them the right to steal nor to free them from responsibility they bear by using the stolen product.
"And what right does Microsoft have to inflict harm on you, me, or others who are not pirates?"
None. But none of us has any right to require them to cover the costs of faults which are not covered in their warranty. We can argue of what warranty they give (IMO essentialy none), but that's another problem.
You mentioned Ford. Ford partialy because of warranty they give, partialy voluntarily (to keep good relationships with their customers so future business wont be hurt) proactively distribute "patches" for their faulty cars. It's a shame forces of free market have no such effect on Microsoft.
So (I'm partialy repeating myself again):
So again: Users should ask fair warranty from manufacturer, if they are buying from him so they want have to be responsible for mistakes manufacturer has done.
In case of Microsoft you should write to them, call them,
If, in the process, you encounter problems with interoperability between MS Windows, MS Office,
So to close that up: Current situation with malware outbrakes is after all respons
hany
coatespc68.coateslab.lsu.edu