Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Genuine Advantage Cracked

piyush ranjan writes "An Indian researcher has cracked the much-touted "impenetrable" Windows Genuine Advantage of Microsoft. According to Microsoft this service would soon require all Windows users to verify their license before downloading updates."

427 comments

  1. Text by krray · · Score: 5, Informative

    Indian cracks Microsoft's anti-piracy program

    Alok Sharma | June 21, 2005 14:53 IST

    An Indian researcher has breached the much-touted "impenetrable" Windows Genuine Advantage of Microsoft.

    Bangalore-based Debasis Mohanty has cracked WGA through an "easy-to-exploit" weakness in the software for generating illegal copies of the Windows XP programme.

    Microsoft confirmed the claims of Mohanty, but sought to downplay it saying, "It represents very little threat." A company spokesperson said they did expect counterfeiters to try a number of different methods to circumvent safeguards provided by WGA.

    WGA is an anti-piracy programme that keeps a tab on consumers whether they are running legitimately licensed copies of Windows XP.

    Mohanty has posted a detailed proof-of-concept programme on the high-profile security mailing list of the software giant, showing how the WGA validation check can be tricked to generate key codes for use on illegal copies of the software.

    Using a secondary Microsoft validation tool called 'genuinecheck.Exe', Mohanty claims to have made it possible for people to trick the safeguard mechanism and download and run the supposedly restricted software from Microsoft's download centre, he said.

    1. Re:Text by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Funny

      Did he stick tape over the Windows key during installation?
      Or did he perhaps hold down the shift key.

      The world must know.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    2. Re:Text by Curtman · · Score: 1, Funny

      When's this being ported to Wine? :)

    3. Re:Text by Slack3r78 · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, he colored over the inner ring of the internet with a Sharpie.

    4. Re:Text by sethadam1 · · Score: 1

      Actually, he ran a Sharpie over the F1 key and it worked just fine.

    5. Re:Text by oahazmatt · · Score: 5, Funny
      Did he stick tape over the Windows key during installation? Or did he perhaps hold down the shift key.

      I share your amusement. Though I am by no means capable enough to perform such a task myself (those shift keys are tricky) it seems that a Microsoft program being cracked or broken or worked-around or otherwise finagled is not necessarily a breakthrough. I suppose the most news-worthy aspect of this particular crack was in response of someone sinking what Microsoft was apparently toting around as the Titanic.

      Interesting, yes. Front page? Maybe not other to rub it in Microsoft's face. This isn't the Special Olympics people. Not everyone gets a medal and a hug. :)

      --
      Those who believe the Internet is private,
      find their privates are on the Internet.
    6. Re:Text by Cromac · · Score: 1, Funny
      I suppose the most news-worthy aspect of this particular crack was in response of someone sinking what Microsoft was apparently toting around as the Titanic.

      I wish I had mod points for you, that's probably the best analogy and funniest thing I've seen on slashdot all week.

    7. Re:Text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "This isn't the Special Olympics people."

      Where does Microsoft recruit, then, Einstein?

    8. Re:Text by ProfFalcon · · Score: 1

      Here. I have mod points. I'll mod it up for you.


      D'OH! I can't mod and post! Never mind.

      --
      Simply stating [Citation Needed] does not automatically make you insightful or brilliant.
    9. Re:Text by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Inner ring and internet.... Please no goatse links..

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    10. Re:Text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's a misuse of the phrase... toting around, means, basically, to carry around...

      So, he claims that Microsoft was carrying it around... WTF? Over?

      So, not only is not funny, it just doesn't make any sense, either. But it did get modded up, probably because the people with mod points today are just as cluless.

      The fact that you found it funny means that you don't have a clue, either.

      But, that's typical of Slashdot these days: Lots of high-digit UID posters spewing random garbage onto the site from the 'puters that their parents bought them.

      But, I'm not bitter.

      However, I'm still hopeful that someone will come to their senses and create a 6-digit+ UID filter.

      And, what he was probably trying to was: "... what Microsoft was touting as the Titanic".

      Makes much more sense that way.

    11. Re:Text by KendyForTheState · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing it was a mis-spelling... he meant to say "touting".

      --
      ...I just came for the free beer.
    12. Re:Text by Donny+Smith · · Score: 1

      How the fuck is pirating someone's article Informative?
      If anything, it should be modded Redundant.

    13. Re:Text by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      It's interesting choice of name, Windows Genuine _Advantage_. They're not saying that you can't run the warez version, just that there's an advantage (support) if pay for it.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    14. Re:Text by yason · · Score: 2, Funny

      We don't know but one thing is certain: Microsoft still employs weaker key lengths than 10 fingers. No wonder it's broken so easily except for the most severely handicapped crackers.

      The day when eleven simultaneous keypresses are required, also known as "next order fingerography", will mark the line between ordinary hackers and the wittiest ubercrackers. It has been rumoured that some are already preparing for those times with prototypes of a so-called "Eine Fingermaschine". Also, the piracy rings of the Mafia already have much experience with handling fingers. Nevertheless, along with 11-finger keylengths and longer, casual piracy is expected to be given a literal "thumbs down" signal from Mr. Gates.

    15. Re:Text by oahazmatt · · Score: 1

      Either way was functionally in the mystery that is my mind. I didn't know if tote (as in a tote-bag) was an actual verb or not.

      --
      Those who believe the Internet is private,
      find their privates are on the Internet.
  2. Download? by nightemaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So... where can I download this?

    1. Re:Download? by aderen · · Score: 2, Funny

      What for? I thought everyone reading slashdot is using linux or mac.

    2. Re:Download? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. Re:Download? by Nadsat · · Score: 1

      You can download it from Microsoft's website. In order to attract a younger audience... they are selling l337 Microsoft Hacks that can crack their operating systems. Cost is $799.99.

  3. It was probably made easy to keep Chinese support by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    since MSFT is trying to expand into there and hasn't yet been able to get China to even crack down on IP enforcement on their own government ministries, let alone the military factories.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  4. let me be the first to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    torrent?

    1. Re:let me be the first to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Avalanche?

    2. Re:let me be the first to say by panaceaa · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't you rather have an Avalanche? I hear it's supposed to make it easier to get Windows updates :).

    3. Re:let me be the first to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      linux?

  5. Wait-- which WGA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Phew! I thought they meant the other one.

    Like, the one that writes dialogue that actors get credit for.

  6. That's great microsoft... by chris09876 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I love how they say it represents very little threat. I guess we can expect them to save face, but someone must be kicking themselves over this one! "Very little threat" probably translates into millions of copies distributed over P2P networks :)

    1. Re:That's great microsoft... by RonnyJ · · Score: 1

      It does represent very little threat though - you still need access to a legitimate copy of XP to download a file. If you've got that, why not just download the files on the legitimate machine?

    2. Re:That's great microsoft... by canfirman · · Score: 1, Funny

      Is it co-incidence, then, that I see an advertisement on the site that says, "Resumes Required Urgently"?

      --
      It is not our abilities that show what we truly are... it is our choices.
    3. Re:That's great microsoft... by ashmedai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Think about which is easier:

      1) Accessing a random legitimate install once for a minute or two.

      2) Accessing a legitimate install every time a new patch comes out, for however long it takes to download. Must also make arrangements to transport the downloaded files.

      That answer your question?

    4. Re:That's great microsoft... by RonnyJ · · Score: 1
      You're making the assumption that Microsoft will make each generated key grant you access to WPA for an indefinite period.

      This may be the case now during their trial period, but if Microsoft so desire, they can force you to generate a key for each download if you don't use IE/ActiveX.

    5. Re:That's great microsoft... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      If you're a piracy crook, you've got remote access to someone else's machine, possibly to hundreds of them. You build, or find, a pirate software website that publishes these.

      The invested time is really not very large and scales nicely.

    6. Re:That's great microsoft... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      some posts deleted.....????

  7. I forsee... by Khyber · · Score: 1

    A lot of people on that security forum that are going to post about this in their blogs, and boom, everyone's going to be able to upgrade XP without worries. It poses very little threat to Microsoft, whatever. Once again, people will have the ability to forego M$'s BS and do what they've always wanted to do.

    Microsoft? Secure? Those words don't belong in the same PAGE.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:I forsee... by hermank · · Score: 1

      How about this ?

      "Rivals of Microsoft Windows platform are far more secure by design."

  8. Two quotes come to mind by 1967mustangman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The first is from George Patton : "Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man." The second is from Karl von Clausewitz: "If you entrench yourself behind strong fortifications, you compel the enemy seek a solution elsewhere." I think these speak volumes

    --
    Madre de Dios! Es El Pollo Diablo! -- Captain Blondebeard
    1. Re:Two quotes come to mind by eobanb · · Score: 1

      the von Clausewitz recommendation simply doesn't apply here. In the real world, with nations, armies, food, ammunition, and natural resources, you need to pick your enemies wisely. In the computer world, it hardly matters, because there is no real risk to you in trying to crack some encryption of Microsoft's, and weaker schemes are too easy to crack such that they can actually be *boring*. A lot of crackers, white or black hat, just aim for the biggest target for the thrill of it, because that's the whole point.

      --

      Take off every sig. For great justice.

    2. Re:Two quotes come to mind by EggyToast · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Very true. Not to mention that in many cases, those little boring programs just use a basic serial and then say "Hey, crackers, please don't crack or distribute my app. It's just a basic algorithm, but it's how I make a living."

      It sometimes amazes me how many crackers do have a conscience about the smaller guys, and how hard it can be to find passwords or cracks to cheap applications.

      I almost liken it to the p2p v. itunes thing. When you can find a song for a buck in 30 seconds, compared to attempting to locate one for free over the course of 30 minutes, for many people the $1 method is a lot easier. For lots of people looking for random utilities or programs, when they find something that works, does a job well, and is cheap, they'll plink down the money for it. At least compared to finding a crack over the course of a week that may or may not work.

      The smaller guys can also simply change-up the algorithm for the cracked passwords for each release every few weeks, something the big guys can't really do ;D

    3. Re:Two quotes come to mind by bluGill · · Score: 1

      When we designed our serial number scheme we did research and concluded there was no scheme we could implement that you could not break. Therefore we made the serial number with the idea of keeping the honest people honest. You won't accidental use one more copy than you should because we keep track of how many copies are installed automatically.

      Sure we can used a hash, but the problem is we need some way to generate the keys, which isn't easy with a hash.

      By keys I'm talking about thousands of keys. We need some way to tell several thousand programs to work, while making it difficult for you to claim it was an accident that you had too many copies installed.

      We wrote our scheme before the days of everyone had an internet connection, we could do a little more now. Still isn't much though.

    4. Re:Two quotes come to mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, Clausewitz was far more subtle in his strategy than Patton.

      No fortress should ever be the sole defense. But fortresses used in concert with active elements such as special forces acting indepently can be very effective. Waging defensive war can literally destroy the most powerful of enemies. If a threat is offensive in nature, it has made its weakness exposed. The most important elements of defensive warfare are determination and organization. If you have these two things, preferably with a good amount of open country, then no enemy will be able to conquer you without a policy of total annihilation. And policies of total annihilation can only work in situations with significantly superior firepower, even then it's not a sure thing.

      Patton faced the Nazis who were not that good at waging defensive war. If they had been better, history would most likely have been different.

    5. Re:Two quotes come to mind by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I'm courious how that worked without the internet, was it by phone or post? Because that would be a pain in the neck to activate by phone etc.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    6. Re:Two quotes come to mind by Demanufacture · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think the reason that crackers don't crack smaller/cheap apps has anything to do with conscience. It has to do with the fact that there is more "cred" to be gained by cracking popular/expensive apps.

      --
      --- "When you're strange"
    7. Re:Two quotes come to mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      trust me or not, but i as a "retired cracker" i can assure you that i ve keep releasing some patch for
      small shareware - as i would know that will kill the developer revenue....

      and it as nothing to do with "cred"

      you have more "cred" if you crack an apps that no one have cracked before, that to apply un quick jmp
      to a popular/expensive apps.

      juste my 2cents

  9. Greaaaaat..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So now we'll have all these news reports mentioning the Genuine Advantage of Microsoft products. They could hardly have made a better marketing campaign themselves.

  10. Hmmm, Aptly named by KSobby · · Score: 1, Funny

    Funny to see the word's "genuine" and "microsoft" in the same story. I love the smell of irony in the evening.

    --
    "It's difficult to meditate on amphetamines." - Joe Walsh
    1. Re:Hmmm, Aptly named by the+MaD+HuNGaRIaN · · Score: 1

      No, no, no.....you got it all wrong....

      It's funny to see the words "Microsoft" and "Advantage" in the same story.

    2. Re: Hmmm, Aptly named by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > Funny to see the word's "genuine" and "microsoft" in the same story.

      How 'bout "genuine microsoft fuck-up"?

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re:Hmmm, Aptly named by ashmedai · · Score: 1

      You must have missed the ones about Microsoft taking advantage of consumers.

    4. Re:Hmmm, Aptly named by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft is genuinely pleased to take advantage of you.

  11. You'd think this would be obvious by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Microsoft has the right to restrict product updates to only their paying customers.

    However, the installed base is huge and the illegally installed base is also huge. Microsoft, because it is their OS, has a moral responsibility to prevent internet worms and viruses by releasing patches to all users, regardless of the legality of the installation.

    Can MS really be held at fault when illegal usage of the OS results in a huge failure of the Internet?

    1. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by Scoria · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Can MS really be held at fault when illegal usage of the OS results in a huge failure of the Internet?

      I'll bite. Microsoft can only repair the vulnerabilities that they have been made aware of. If somebody uses a 0-day exploit to craft a worm, then I don't believe Microsoft can really be held accountable. That is like blaming the manufacturer of a safe for being susceptible to a heretofore undisclosed method of safe cracking.

      If it is a vulnerability that they've known about for months, however, not unlike many of those that affect Internet Explorer, then that should probably be considered a different story.

      Despite the accusations of trolling that you've received, however, I believe that you were right to distinguish an ethical responsibility from a legal one.

      --
      Do you like German cars?
    2. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by xtracto · · Score: 1

      However, the installed base is huge and the illegally installed base is also huge.

      I would rather say the [legal] install base is big, and illegally installed base is huge ;)

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    3. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by rpozz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      (Mods, that's not a troll, it's a decent point)

      You'd probably be quite surprised at the number of legal copies of Windows that are in use. Most people get it whether they like it or not with their new computer. People running 98/ME usually find that their computer is under-spec to run 2K/XP and simply buy a new one. It's mainly people who build their own computer (and thus should know what they are doing) who pirate Windows.

      You still raise a very interesting question there though. I would say that they should allow anyone to update, mainly because many updates to Windows are security fixes and zombie machines adversely affect other users, not just the owner.

    4. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, given that all those patches and upgrades haven't even come close to eliminating malware, I'd say that free autoupdates aren't the issue. Foisting drain-bamaged operating system and applications software upon an unsuspecting populace is the real problem. Forget all this nonsense about "certifying" users to access the Internet and forcing ISPs to deal with malware ... let Windows get certified to be connected to the Internet. Governments all around the world have minimum safety standards that commercial products (ranging from cars to blow dryers to computers) have to meet before they can be sold. I have the feeling that if such a standard was implemented pretty much every other operating system out there would get reasonably high marks. Microsoft would have to go back to the drawing board and that's one place they absolutely do not want to go.

      Hell, just keep Windows off the market until you can run Satan against an unpatched, freshly-installed copy of XP and have nothing happen. Then maybe we'll have fewer problems with malware and crackers.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    5. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      If somebody uses a 0-day exploit to craft a worm, then I don't believe Microsoft can really be held accountable.

      No, it would still depend on the obviousness of the exploit used.

      But if you use the definition of obviousness at use in the USPTO, Microsoft will still be safe from accountability.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    6. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "If somebody uses a 0-day exploit to craft a worm, then I don't believe Microsoft can really be held accountable. That is like blaming the manufacturer of a safe for being susceptible to a heretofore undisclosed method of safe cracking."

      I agree with you in one way, and yet in another way, I'm compelled to disagree. No, I'm not a Linux fanboy/Microsoft hater/etc, but if something is insecure from the begining, then someone needs to take responsibility. Sure, they might not know about the exploit, but if one exists, then that means someone didn't do their job in the begining.

      I realize it's probably fairly hard to create a product that is 100% exploit free, but I don't believe that just because it's hard/challenging that it relieves anyone/everyone from being held responsible.

    7. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'll bite. Microsoft can only repair the vulnerabilities that they have been made aware of. If somebody uses a 0-day exploit to craft a worm, then I don't believe Microsoft can really be held accountable.

      Bull. Good software is designed to be more reliable. Only give access that a module needs to do the job. Block access to things that you don't need.

      An intelligent, proactive design prevents vulnerabilities in the first place, and mitigates them if they occur. Windows has so many design flaws, it looks like Swiss cheese.

    8. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by Scoria · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, it would still depend on the obviousness of the exploit used.

      I'm not a Microsoft apologist. I never deploy Windows. I despise many of their tactics. I prefer a Unix-based operating system.

      That said, let's face it: A 0-day exploit can affect any operating system, no matter how secure we might consider it. That includes every clone and variant of Unix available today.

      As a programmer, you can take every precaution and still encounter a blatantly obvious -- to your critics, at least -- compromise. Although it really isn't a valid comparison, I'll cite the design problem that was eventually fixed in our beloved PHP interpreter. The end-user was once allowed to manipulate server-side variables, and that was sometimes an absolute nightmare to work around.

      If such an obvious vulnerability were present in an ASP interpreter, we'd chuckle together and continue bashing the developers (developers, developers!) at Microsoft. I'll admit that it's often very funny to do so, but I'm ultimately afraid that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones -- even if our glass house is reinforced. ;-)

      --
      Do you like German cars?
    9. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by Scoria · · Score: 1

      Bull. Good software is designed to be more reliable. Only give access that a module needs to do the job. Block access to things that you don't need.

      An intelligent, proactive design prevents vulnerabilities in the first place, and mitigates them if they occur. Windows has so many design flaws, it looks like Swiss cheese.


      As I've mentioned here, I'm not an apologist. If somebody deployed Microsoft Windows in an absolutely mission critical environment, I'd suspect that they were more than a little masochistic. I'm especially critical of the time required by Microsoft to repair a fairly trivial exploit, especially those that are present in widely deployed "free" products like Internet Explorer.

      You're right about good software, too. What happens, however, if a crafty individual discovers a vulnerability in the hypothetical module that restricts access to other modules? That would immediately compromise your entire design.

      While I will obviously agree that Windows is substantially less secure than most other operating systems (*BSD, Linux, et al.), it only takes one crucial 0-day vulnerability to compromise a working system.

      Windows has so many design flaws, it looks like Swiss cheese.

      For legal reasons, I've chosen not to download or review the source code that is available for retrieval online. Therefore, if you've happened to stumble upon it, I'll take your word for that. ;-)

      --
      Do you like German cars?
    10. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft, because it is their OS, has a moral responsibility to prevent internet worms and viruses by releasing patches to all users, regardless of the legality of the installation.

      "Microsoft" doesn't exist. It's a legal fiction, it's nothing tangible, and certainly not something to which morals can be ascribed.

      The people in charge of Microsoft, on the other hand, do exist. But the sole justification for holding the position of responsibility that they do is so that they can make money for Microsoft shareholders.

      If the directors don't take a course of action that compels people to pay for Windows, then they have no right to old the position that they do and should be kicked out of office. How is letting people commit copyright ingfringement moral when they have a duty to do otherwise?

      The real responsibility are the shareholders, the people that compel the directors to do what they do. But they aren't part of Microsoft per se.

    11. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by finse · · Score: 1
      Forget all this nonsense about "certifying" users to access the Internet and forcing ISPs to deal with malware ... let Windows get certified to be connected to the Internet. Governments all around the world have minimum safety standards that commercial products (ranging from cars to blow dryers to computers) have to meet before they can be sold.

      Are you really saying our/your government should certify Windows before it should be allowed access the Internet? IMHO, thats a scary thought. If the government were to pass legislation dictating what OS'es can/can't be connected to the Internet, what makes you think your OS is going to be safe? Do you really think the government is going to certify your LFS build for you? If they do, do you really think they will do it for free? This is a problem for Microsoft to solve, not my tax dollars.

      --
      Paranoid tinfoil hat crowd say Y here, everyone else say N.
    12. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by kosmosik · · Score: 1

      > Microsoft has the right to restrict product
      > updates to only their paying customers.

      Not everywhere. I mean that I don't know where you live but in my place it may be different. Like OK I fully understand that MS want to restrict its product. But under my local law it has no authority to f.e. gather my data. I've bought their software - and this is OK. It is not OK from them to require ME to supply some additional data. When I bought Windows I read license and it said I would get updates for some peroid of time *without* altering my license.

      So I feel like clicking on their website and like inputing them data about f.e. my IP is not exactly legal.

    13. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by shogun · · Score: 1

      But if you use the definition of obviousness at use in the USPTO, Microsoft will still be safe from accountability.

      Theres an idea, patent:
      --
      An operating system with multiple vulnerabilities to various security exploits that allows it to be used by internet worms to infect and propagate.
      --
      Next time theres a round of viruses sue MS for patent infringement...

    14. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The end-user was once allowed to manipulate server-side variables, and that was sometimes an absolute nightmare to work around.

      They still are, it's just in an array now. It's not a vulnerability, it just makes the likelihood of developers writing insecure code higher. The insecure code isn't PHP's fault, it's the person writing the PHP code, just like buffer overruns aren't C's fault, but the person writing the C code.

      If such an obvious vulnerability were present in an ASP interpreter, we'd chuckle together and continue bashing the developers

      We? I wouldn't, I'm not a juvenile moron/zealot.

    15. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by linguae · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Microsoft, because it is their OS, has a moral responsibility to prevent internet worms and viruses by releasing patches to all users, regardless of the legality of the installation.

      Microsoft has the right to refuse patches of their operating system to users who have illegally obtained the software. Why should Microsoft, or any other corporation, use its money and waste its time providing patches and other OS updates to people who have illegally obtained the OS? OS patches are a privilege, not a right.

      Don't get me wrong; I do not support MS's annoying activation and registration policies. However, why should people who have pirated Windows be able to expect support from Microsoft at all? And Microsoft can't do anything about Internet worms and viruses at all. Even though Windows isn't very secure (and its long overdue for a complete rewrite), Microsoft has no control over what other software people make. Windows, or any other operating system, can't prevent worms and viruses. Only users can prevent worms and viruses. In order to avoid Internet nasties, you either need to use a more secure operating system, a less popular operating system, or stick with Windows and become educated about viruses/worms/malware/etc.

    16. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by RodgerDodger · · Score: 1

      When a car has a safety flaw, they issue a recall notice. This is analagous to the update mechanism for Windows.

      In some cases, car manufacturers have been sued over flaws. In some of those cases, the courts have ruled that the car manufacturers were at fault: some action they took (or a reasonable one they failed to take) caused the flaw.

      In a similar vein, Microsoft (and other software vendors) could be considered liable for zero-day exploits, on the grounds that the flaw shouldn't have been introduced in the first place.

      --
      "Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
    17. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by king-manic · · Score: 1

      Err... Most successful malware utilize a stupid end user as much as exploits in windows. No OS can be fool proof against a determined fool.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    18. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      No government of which I'm aware has a law saying that Fords aren't allowed to be driven on the highway while Chevies are.

      However, plenty of them have laws saying that any motor vehicle you plan to operate on public roads must be equipped with working brakes, headlights, etc.

      Don't confuse enforcement of a standard with mandating a specific implementation of a standard.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    19. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I know what you're saying, and I agree with you, and (particularly in the wake of 9/11 and the Patriot Act) I'm generally not in favor of any extension of government authority. However, there are some other aspects to this to consider.

      Believe me, the government already controls the availability of 99.999% of what you buy. Any piece of electronic equipment has to be tested by an accredited laboratory to meet FCC and other standards. Heck, I used to develop automated testing systems for automotive parts manufacturers. The reason was that they were required to perform specific (often destructive) tests to ensure that their products met various Federal Motor Vehicle safety standards. Good thing too, I might add. I saw a number of components (seat tracks and so forth) that looked good on paper but would have been a disaster had they been actually put in cars. So enforcing minimum standards is a large part of the legitimate functions our government already performs.

      The software industry (and I'm a senior software engineer myself and from a personal perspective I'd rather the Feds stayed out of my hair) has pretty much been given a free pass on quality issues. No big deal for, say, a video game (although, my brother is a coder for a major game developer ... he tells me that if Microsoft adopted some of their QC standards Windows would be more secure than the BSDs) but it is a problem for consumer-grade operating systems. Now I'm NOT saying that the government should dictate what OSes can or can't be used or for what. Obviously, that would be very bad. But would it hurt for Internet-aware operating systems be tested by an independent certifying authority (Underwriters Labs or something like that) to at least be less of a pushover than Windows is today?

      Truth is, in today's connected world a security-deficient operating system can cost it's users far more than a malfunctioning automobile. Microsoft is apparently unwilling to make the investment in a secure operating system ... the losses worldwide attributable to this fourth-rate software house are in the hundreds of billions of dollars. At one point do you say, well, it would be nice if free market forces could solve the problem but admit that they aren't? At least, not with regards to Microsoft.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    20. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by slavemowgli · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, Windows NT at least *was* certified, even though there were controversies surrounding the whole issue: see this article, for example.

      Kind of scary when you think about it.

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    21. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Can MS really be held at fault when illegal usage of the OS results in a huge failure of the Internet?"

      Why not spread some of the blame to the hackers, crackers, and script kiddies?

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    22. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "can only be held responsible for the vulnerabilities that they are aware of..."

      Ummm, excuse me, but I call BULLSHIT. They wrote the software, and a high percentage of the flaws that affect their junk are of the same categories (pick your favorite): buffer overflows, cross-scripting attacks, etc...

      If you know that you have a problem with buffer overflows - then you have your asshole programers validate EVERY input for length and type - no exceptions. Better yet, allocate a buffer that's 10% larger than it needs to be, and validate for what the length should actually be - then if *something* happens, you've got some slack.

      A waste of memory to be sure, but then again we are talking about the most bloated piece of OS on the planet, so what's the diff?

      That microsoft claims not to know about some vulnerability that they created in the first place is BULLSHIT... absolute bullshit. Remember the basics: Design the code, write the code, TEST the code, have someone else test the code, test again, then release...

      MS seems to just jump right to write the code, then release... Testing is not too well thought out in my book.

      The only way to get these clowns to do otherwise is to fine their asses - everytime a bug is in the software that costs someone $$$, they must pay - unless they can prove through a 3rd party that they documented and tested and tested their code... Then the person who pays are the testers.... Maybe that's nuts, but maybe that's what needs to be threatened to get them to write better code...

    23. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by timbo234 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You'd probably be quite surprised at the number of legal copies of Windows that are in use

      You'd be quite surprised at the number of illegal copies too. Everybody I know who didn't get WinXP with a new PC has simply pirated it, most people just don't talk about it or post about it on message boards. I fear the day when all these machines (including, I'll admit, the non-Linux machines in my house) can't get security updates. There will be vast numbers of spam-bots, virus spreaders and DDoS zombies, even more so than now.

      --
      Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.
    24. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      linguae (763922): Why should Microsoft, or any other corporation, use its money and waste its time providing patches and other OS updates to people who have illegally obtained the OS?

      Uh.. because it costs the same to patch 1 machine as it does 1 million (don't give me bullshit about bandwidth).

    25. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I too have read the articles about security-deficient operating systems causing death and severe wounds.

    26. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ---Why should Microsoft, or any other corporation, use its money and waste its time providing patches and other OS updates to people who have illegally obtained the OS? OS patches are a privilege, not a right.

      They had better consider it a "privilege" that I pay for any product that they make. After all, the 2 computers that I bought pre-done had licenses that I COULD NOT REVOKE and get my money back. And there's something I heard about bundling being illegal... and something about being a convicted monopolist illegally playing the system.

      To me, its just a Wintendo, good for games, and not much else. I have a nice hardened Ubuntu desktop in which I do work in. The Windows box is good for stuff like NWN, console emulators, and Mechwarrior games. Thats it.

      --
    27. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by Adambomb · · Score: 1

      ...has a moral responsibility...

      Corporation....moral responsibility...

      I think you almost shocked my brain into a coma.

      --
      Ice Cream has no bones.
    28. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by Urthen+Rampage · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As you say, people who use cracked versions of windows usually know what they are doing. As such, they (should be) using good antivirus and firewalls. The real problem is Joe Shmoe AOL user who just discovered the intarweb on his new comptar and has no idea what a virus really is, let alone a botnet, but wants to go surf the web despite their being depressingly unprotected. I wrote in another article in another website: It is everyone's responsibility to use the internet correctly just like handling a gun. It can be a potent tool, hobby, and yes even a weapon, but use it without proper knowledge and your going to shoot yourself or worse, someone else, by accident. A point was brought up that someone didnt want to have to bother with getting better firewalls and antivirus, they arent "computer people". This is the type of attitude that lets the hackers' botnets bulge with fresh zombies.

    29. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by Scudsucker · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Why should Microsoft, or any other corporation, use its money and waste its time providing patches and other OS updates to people who have illegally obtained the OS?

      Because leaving all those machines unpatched hurts their own customers, dumbass. They need to fix their priorities or risk loosing the privledge of getting our money for their products.

    30. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by zbuffered · · Score: 1

      many updates to Windows are security fixes and zombie machines adversely affect other users, not just the owner.

      True! Genuine Advantage is great news to the folks who create and use the Metasploit framework.

      --
      Synergy is your friend
    31. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should check out the ones on them causing hundereds of millions of dollars in economic damage.

    32. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Compare

      "Microsoft has the right to refuse patches of their operating system to users who have illegally obtained the software. Why should Microsoft, or any other corporation, use its money and waste its time providing patches and other OS updates to people who have illegally obtained the OS?"

      with

      "Ford has the right to refuse recalls of Explores to users who have illegally obtained the car."

      and think.

    33. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by EnderWigginsXenocide · · Score: 1

      When a car has a safety flaw, they issue a recall notice. This is analagous to the update mechanism for Windows.

      When Honda recalls a car, they also fix the cars still on the lot, and they change the way new ones are built as to avoid having to fix them as soon as they leave the factory. A WinXPPRO CD you buy today still has the same security holes that were there the day the first one rolled off the factory machine. That's like Honda recallingCivics for bad breaks, then still selling new Civics with the bad break design still in place. This would get Honda sued into the ground, but it's totaly cool for MS to behave this way.

      --
      Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups. -- 0 1 My two bits
    34. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we are going to try to hold that copyright infringement is not equivalent to theft, then we need to stop making analogies between software piracy and physical theft.

      Software is not a car.

    35. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No twit, patches are a RESPONSIBILITY of the OS vendor.

    36. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

      Why should Microsoft, or any other corporation, use its money and waste its time providing patches and other OS updates to people who have illegally obtained the OS?

      Why would they waste their money on trying to certify if the copy is legit?

      To sell more copies? That's right!

      Side note: I directed someone to buy a PC @ $499 with a monitor at Sams Club. Great deal, but their ex-husband said "I could have built one for that price"... groan... of course he never figured in the extra $200 for Windows XP.

    37. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "OS patches are a privilege, not a right."

      OS patches are exactly what the name says : a PATCH. It means that someone somewhere probably made a calculation that showed that it was cost-effective (to them) to ship-out a product that has more problems than a swiss cheese has got holes.

      I then a user of that product finds one of those holes the product is than, by way of a patch, repaired in such a way that it can be used again (without posing a threat to the customer, or it's surroundings).

      If that method would be used on a car (yes, I know. It's a well-known comparision) the manufacturer would probably be sued by the state for reclessly endangering it's customers.

      Alas, someone of which his/her creditcard number is "retrieved" and/or his/her identity is copied & mis-used (due to one of those many swiss cheese holes) never make any big headlines like a crash-and-burning car would do ...

      No. Getting those patches is not a privilege. If anything, the offering of them should be regarded as (maybe even supported by Law) a duty.

    38. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by ViaD · · Score: 0

      I don't know how many pirated Win copies there are out there, but you want them all to be unpatched too!?
      I pray for them unpatched machines to be the army that shut down MS for good.

    39. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by Thaelon · · Score: 1

      How in the world did you forget spammers?

      --

      Question everything

    40. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by hacker · · Score: 1
      "Why not spread some of the blame to the hackers, crackers, and script kiddies?"

      Why punish the whitehats that are helping security?

    41. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by Daedala · · Score: 1

      It is very true that a zero-day exploit can affect anyone. People who think that Mac or Linux boxen are "safe" are in cloud-cuckoo land. That said, it's a lot easier to get a malicious zero-day exploit to run on a system with poor privilege management, as well as easier to get it to propagate automagically. It's not safe, but it's probably safer.

      --
      What I say does not represent the views of my employers, my friends, my cats, or myself.
    42. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by brakk · · Score: 1

      I did a deployment job for a large company that just bought about 600 new Dells. They already had a site license for XP pro that covered the whole company. But, since Dell wouldn't sell the machines without licenses, they bought them all with XP home licenses (because they were cheaper)and just threw them away and re-imaged the machines with XP pro.

      That's 600 copies of XP home paid for and I'm sure this happens all the time elswhere too.

    43. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by mutterc · · Score: 1

      Such a day will be great for Microsoft - if they time it when a Palladium-"enhanced" version of Windows is available. Once the Internet is melting down, they can come in and claim that the DRM in Trusted Computing will eliminate spam and viruses, and people will eat it up.

    44. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I would disagree with that ... some of the most successful malware simply attacked open holes in various flavors of Windows, and had the authors been truly malicious could have caused global carnage. And I'm sorry, but if you look at how painlessly Outlook could be induced to execute code in an email by simply having the preview pane open, and that Internet Explorer was designed to autoexecute ActiveX controls by default ... well. A lot of this can still be laid squarely at Microsoft's feet. Yes, they've fixed a lot of that but only if you're running the latest stuff and have a broadband connection to get the updates. Furthermore, there are still untold millions of eminently-hackable Windows 9x machines out there running old versions of Office that to this day remain as exploitable as they ever were. Don't let Microsoft off so easily. That company has much to atone for.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    45. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      And furthermore, regarding stupid end users ... I've been a software developer for a good twenty-five years, and I have always felt that it was incumbent upon me, the developer, to keep the user from getting into too much trouble. Most of the "stupid end user" problems stem from people using the software for its intended function. I shouldn't need to worry that the default behavior of my damn email program will run some arbitrary piece of code written by a Bulgarian blackhat. Why should that even occur to me? As for my Web browser permitting, by default, any site I might visit to run a drive-by download on me ... well. It's just ridiculous, and stems from Microsoft being caught completely flatfooted by the Internet, having been totally LAN-centric for a good decade or so prior to that. When TCP/IP connected everyone to everyone else, Microsoft was totally unprepared and they are still playing security catchup to, well, pretty much every competing operating system on the market.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    46. Re:You'd think this would be obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      since Dell wouldn't sell the machines without licenses

      Bullshit. Dell is allowed to sell you a machine without an OS license if you sign a statement that says you already have a site license. Your account rep is incompetent or stealing from you.

  12. 1992 called ... by w98 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... they want their copy protection scheme back.

    1. Re:1992 called ... by xtracto · · Score: 1

      just a question (an authentic one) what is this meme about?

      mod me down... accordingly

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    2. Re:1992 called ... by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 4, Informative


      I'm not sure if the year 1992 has any significance. But in the early age of consumer computing, software used to be built with schemes to make it "impossible" to copy/install/use the software without validating that you had purchased the product.

      Usually, this was done by being forced to physically lookup a phrase in the physical documentation and then feed it back to program before it would start/continue work.

      This was annoying as hell, particularly to the paying customers. "crackers" would usually located the protection routine in the binary code, and patch it to skip the check. The practice was discontinued because the "protection" scheme would not protect non-purchased use of its product, (the savvier users would merely apply the publicised crack) and would reduce its marketshare by annoying its purchasing customers. Ultimately, software companies just factored piracy rates into its pricing structure.

      The post was meant to be humorous, but you may have started using computers after the practice stopped, and thus your question.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    3. Re:1992 called ... by Gleng · · Score: 1

      I hear Longhorn comes with a serial port dongle and a cardboard code wheel.

      --
      "Proudly Posting Without Reading The Article"
    4. Re:1992 called ... by Emetophobe · · Score: 1
      Usually, this was done by being forced to physically lookup a phrase in the physical documentation and then feed it back to program before it would start/continue work.
      I had lots of old dos games that used this early form of copy protection, of course all you needed to do was photocopy the manual or write down all the answers.
    5. Re:1992 called ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is that impossible to copy?

      That sounds really really easy to copy. I'm not going to even say how because it's so obvious.

      Besides, cracks came out for programs like this just like they come out for programs with other sorts of protection.

    6. Re:1992 called ... by slorge · · Score: 1

      I had...let's see...Flinstones animation program, needed a card to choose three items in correct order in order to start the program, and a cool precurser to GTA3, Quarantine, 3D 1st person cab driver picked up fares (thugs) and killed people. Had to look up a weight of something in a huge matrix of numbers spead over the front and back of a 6x8 RED card included in the docs. Took forever to install and get working properly, then you had to worry about deciphering the card to find the answer to a stupid question. Fun as hell once it was working. I think I still had the CD and the card....might install freedos on a machine and try to run it again.

      --
      Some people are like slinkys. They're useless, but it puts a smile on your face to push them down the stairs.
    7. Re:1992 called ... by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Or hex edit the answers in the binary to all be your name.
      Did that with one game that did a check everytime you ran it. Not because I was using a 'warez' copy, I had bought it, but because I spilled a glass of tea on the manual and wrecked about 1/3 of the answers. Of course that wouldn't have happened if I hadn't had the book out to find a doc-check answer in the first place.
      The ONLY real benifit of copy protection schemes is to make money for the people that develope them. That was true before the internet when the cracks would take up to weeks to circulate the bbs's, and much more true when the cracks can sit on some site in a country that doesn't care. They're snake oil. Once ONE person or group has cracked it once, it becomes trivial for anyone else to do so, by simply downloading the crack.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    8. Re:1992 called ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the whole copy protection fiasco of the early 90's is one of the reasons people started abandoning Lotus 1-2-3 for excel. Lotus only allowed 3 copies to be made of the original disks then disks became useless, Excel allowed unlimited copies to be made. This only goes to reinforce my statement that its office managers taking home copies of their work software that fuels this industry. Alienate them and go under.

  13. funny acronyms and oxiMORONS by Paolo+DF · · Score: 0

    Genuine Advantage. Oh, My!

    --
    Pumbaa! I don't wonder; I know.
  14. Funny that you asked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
  15. No more updates? by cdagobah · · Score: 0, Troll

    If MS blocks updates to only legit windows users, all the pirates are going to be forced switch to a more secure OS. It'll be the only way they can protect their PCs from their own viruses! If you ask me, MS is shooting themselves in the foot. Their precious "market share" is going to drop due to the pirates switching to something else. Not a good thing to be doing when Apple just announced they'll be compatible with Intel chips.

    1. Re:No more updates? by 77Punker · · Score: 1

      The best virus protection is to turn off unnecessary services and keep software up to date. I don't use realtime virus protection of any sort and I have never had a virus detected when I occasionally run scans.

    2. Re:No more updates? by toddjames · · Score: 1

      I don't think that the simple fact of not being able to update with KB will make pirates want to switch to OS X. In fact, they're pirates because they don't pay for the software, but they steal it. Last time I checked, Apple made you pay for the updates as well as the original Operating System.

    3. Re:No more updates? by robw810 · · Score: 1

      all the pirates are going to be forced switch to a more secure OS. It'll be the only way they can protect their PCs from their own viruses!

      Not really; so long as you place it behind a stateful firewall and don't route anything else to the machine, it will be fine...

      RW

    4. Re:No more updates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And also a good software AND hardware firewall is useful. The hardware for the inbound protection, and the software for the application-based outbound protection. The hardware is more important, as it keeps external entities from infecting you through any of the various exploits that may exist on your chosen platform. For example, with Linux and other *NIX-like OSes, you don't really have so much of a need for application-based outbound protection as one might on Windows.

    5. Re:No more updates? by jawtheshark · · Score: 1, Troll
      Apple? Yes, they made you pay... Except if you were a pirate. I mean: I got Panther from a friend and used it for about a year. The next OS I was going to pay for was the one I would get with my next Apple.

      Alas, my G3 iBook broke from a known logic board failure (which apple aknowlegdes, but only for users that have their machine for less than 3 years) and I can't use it anymore. No more Apple for me: they were supposed to last longer than PCs (and not a mere 4.5 years). Especially I have laptop PCs that lasted for over 5 years. Fuckers...
      No seriously, OS X is easy to pirate and on top of that all updates are free. No license checking as with Microsoft.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
  16. Need Details by silverbolt · · Score: 1, Troll

    This smacks of vaporware. Which "high profile security mailing list" ? What was the exploit ? When and where did Microsoft "confirm" the findings ?

  17. MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Genuine Advantage is a pain in the arse for both registered and unregistered users. If reinstalling windows was a nightmare, imagine now with having to actually activate your windows. And now for updates? Come on!

    Somebody has to put an end to this.

    1. Re:MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL by superpeach · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I had to activate windows over the phone the other day, because installing SP2 on it broke everything (well, it just didn't like the SIGNED graphics card driver).

      It kept hanging while it was starting up so I took all the expansion cards out, including the graphics card and used the onboard. Worked fine, apart from popping up a message saying the hardware had changed dramatically and windows needed to be reactivated. Didn't have time to play with it so I left it a few days. Next time I turned it on I couldn't do anything unleses I activated windows. Ok, I will just activate it over the internet - or I would if it was configured for the network it was connected to. Cancel activation so I can set up the network, nope, can't change network settings unleses I activate windows (even in safe mode). So, do I configure a DHCP server on another machine, or use the activate by phone option? It was a free call, but if I knew how long it was going to take for the auto responder to read out really really long numbers for me to type then I would have just set up a DHCP server.

    2. Re:MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL by yotto · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Genuine Advantage (What kind of name is that? What does it mean? It's not to my advantage to have to prove I paid for Windows every time I need to reinstall) and the like is one of the main reasons I switched to linux for everything but Grand Theft Auto. I refuse to pay ~$100 and then be treated like a theif. I will never pay for windows, in any capacity, again. If that forces me to build my own comptuer every time I upgrade, so be it.
      Luckily, these days linux is pretty nice, what with Ubuntu and all. You barely need to think any more when installing, and no annoying registration screens!

    3. Re:MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL by westlake · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Genuine Advantage is a pain in the arse for both registered and unregistered users

      Not really. For most users it is fire-and-forget, same as activation.

    4. Re:MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL by Geekboy(Wizard) · · Score: 1
    5. Re:MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Somebody has to put an end to this.

      Yeah, back when they showed off their XP activation, I figured it was only going to get worse. The best solution at the time was to buy a Mac. With Apple's move to Intel-based (and potentially DRM-laden) chips I'm worried they may not have the customer's best interests at heart; they're in the content-production industy's pocket.

      Seeing as the best two solutions seem to have similar goals (control over your system), and Linux is (sorry) nowhere near ready for prime-time (maybe 5 to 10 years - but that's an eternity), what is the computer-savvy consumer to do?

    6. Re:MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1


      Somebody did.

      It's called Linux.

      Well, I suppose you COULD say it hasn't actually ENDED yet - let's just say it's "ENDING"!

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    7. Re:MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL by tepples · · Score: 1

      A PS2 costs as much as Windows, and you need a Linux-supported TV card to use it with your PC.

    8. Re:MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL by modecx · · Score: 1

      Genuine Advantage -- I think that more or less means that it's Microsoft's Genuine Advantage... They've got you bound and gagged, and stuffed in their basement for the next time they've got an urge.

      It's kind of like how DRM dosen't stand for Digital Rights Management... Uhuh.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    9. Re:MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL by Queer+Boy · · Score: 1
      Somebody has to put an end to this.

      There is an end to it, it's called don't use Windows, but the same people bitching about all the Microsoft crap are the same people that won't pay for a Mac and complain that Gnome and KDE aren't ready for the desktop.

      --
      Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
    10. Re:MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Genuine Advantage is a pain in the arse for both registered and unregistered users. . . . Somebody has to put an end to this.

      Someone has. Tens of thousands of people have. I have. I only run Open Source (and preferably Free) software. It's not 1999 anymore, it is really quite a practical solution now. Come on in, the water's fine.

      As an aside, my company is getting audited by WebLogic (hence the anonymous coward). We're in full compliance, as far as we know, but it's still costing us a small truckload of money just to do the audit. And we give WebLogic hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. If that's the kind of friendly customer service you get from proprietary software, I want no part of it.

      To make matters even more amusing, we started getting heavily into JBoss about two years ago, and it has been an entirely viable replacement - better in some places, worse in others. I would be hard pressed to call one the overall superior product. Frankly, they both do a damned fine job.

      I think Linus's comments on the commoditization of software are right on the nose. Add in the regular "beatings until customer satisfaction improves" that you get with proprietary software, and the only hope I see for mass market proprietary software is software patents. Which leads, of course, to its own thought: If the only means by which big software can survive is abuse of the patent system, how long do you think it will be until it starts happening on a wholesale basis?

    11. Re:MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I refuse to pay ~$100 and then be treated like a theif. I will never pay for windows, in any capacity, again."

      Will you pay for a plane ticket? You spend over $300 for plane tickets, then they check your bags like your a terrorist and make you waste all your time.
      I know that they are checking for everybodys safety, but the point is still there, your paying for something and be treated in a way that is not enjoyable.
      If people didn't pirate software, then software manufacturers wouldn't have to do this.

    12. Re:MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL by t35t0r · · Score: 1

      Somebody has to put an end to this.

      yeah start using a "free as in beer" operating system and you'll never have to worry about OS software companies treating you like a thief ever again.

    13. Re:MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL by strikethree · · Score: 1

      with a no-cd hack, grand theft auto plays just fine under wine in linux. click quickly through the movies at the beginning.

      strike

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    14. Re:MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL by Xabraxas · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If people didn't pirate software, then software manufacturers wouldn't have to do this.

      People wouldn't pirate software if it was reasonably priced. $300 for WindowsXP Pro!? $400 for Office2003 Pro!? Are you kidding me? Maybe all this authentication crap will finally drive people to alternatives like Linux and OpenOffice, but I doubt it. Open Source just doesn't have the marketing power that Microsoft does.

      --
      Time makes more converts than reason
    15. Re:MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL by thrift24 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The worst has to be for setting up Microsoft Learning classes that use Virtual PC. You recieve about 2-10 virtual machine images that you have to activate by phone for every class(internet activation doesn't work).

      Now imagine the fun that comes Friday after class to try to activate 3 classes worth of these by Monday morning when microsofts activation line is down half the weekend. *joy*

      Don't you love Regina? That's what we call the Microsoft activation recording, she's screams numbers out like it's a punishment she's giving you. "5! 1! 2! 7! 5! *pleasant voice* would you like me to repeat that..."

    16. Re:MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      Modern marketing dictates that whenever you're about to screw the customer in the ass, you've got to make it sound like a benefit to them. For example, your cable company makes your annual 12% rate hike sound like a benefit (Comcast is excited to bring you new channel packages with more home shopping networks). As opposed to: we're raising prices because we're a monopoly and your only alternative is to get a dish. Which approach is more likely to fool the stupid people?

    17. Re:MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will you pay for a plane ticket?

      no.

    18. Re:MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But once you have the PS2, you can play Katamari Damacy, as well. Besides, another option is a TV. You can pick a 20" up for around $100. Then you can use your PC to check up on the walkthroughs!

    19. Re:MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      It was a free call, but if I knew how long it was going to take for the auto responder to read out really really long numbers for me to type

      Yes, probably an entire 3-5 minutes.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    20. Re:MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL by slashdot.org · · Score: 1

      Somebody has to put an end to this.

      I agree 100%. I actually tried to get the point across to MS but it's harder than you think.

      Here's what happened: I bought Windows Media Center 2003 at Fry's. Interesting observation: the validation key is printed on the outside of the package. Other interesting fact: Fry's allows you to return software if it hasn't been opened.

      I install Win MC on a machine, and finally decide to activate it. It was no surprise to me that the activation software told me the number of activations for this key had been exceeded. Pretty FUCKING nice Microsoft. I buy brand new software and the first thing I have to do is go on the phone for 20 minutes and explain why I am re-installing this software. Show me any other manufacturer that can get away with something like this. (I think it's pretty much a given that someone just bought my copy at Fry's, wrote down the number and then returned it, but that's not my problem)

      So, of course after a while the installation gets hosed because I'm still changing hardware and what have you, so I have to reinstall. Great. Another 20 minutes on the phone.

      This time, after I get my code, I politely ask the person on the line if Microsoft in their ads about TCO also took into account the 40 minutes that I have to spend on the phone with them, for what I consider a typical installation. My billing rate would be somewhere around $150/hour, and at 2/3 of an hour, that's a $100. Which about doubles the actual cost of the software right there.

      The person doesn't understand, and says that _every_ copy of WinXP now has to be validated over the phone. I ask if there is someone who I can speak with to register a formal complaint about this, because this is obviously not indicated on the software package, as I bought it. Nope says the person on the other line, that's not possible.

      Okay, so here's what I'm doing: for the next couple of machines, I'm using the exact same copy of Windows. If I'm going to be treated as a criminal, and more importantly, if I have to cover a cost that's required to get the product to work and that I was completely unaware of at time of purchase, then I think a little civil disobedience is in place. Let the BSA come, we'll see who wins that fight.

      Of course the best way to get the message across would be to just not buy MS products in the first place. But this is the problem with monopolies; that's not always an option you have.

    21. Re:MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL by fr0dicus · · Score: 1

      The move to Intel has no bearing on DRM. It's no more difficult to do that on a PowerPC architecture, obviously. If you've ever used a Mac properly, you'd noticed that the content protection stuff on Mac products is fairly basic. You can 'cd' right into your "hidden" music on the iPod for example. I don't think SJ really believes in DRM.

    22. Re:MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Possibly, but it really did seem more like 15-20 with all the padding around the numbers.

    23. Re:MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A PS2 doesn't need to be re-activated. Honestly, I would turn the argument around - "Windows costs as much as a PS2".

      With Windows one only gets the software, the PS2 comes with hardware included.

    24. Re:MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL by tezbobobo · · Score: 1

      Incorrect: should of
      Still incorrect: should've
      correct: should have

      Firstly, 'right' is a moral judgement. The word you are looking for is either correct or proper. Incorrect is the opposite. Secondly, the phrase is 'should ought to have' as in, 'you should ought to have told the authorities ma'am.' As well, in correct spelling and technical writing one should never cntract spellings.

      I defer in this to Janet Whitcut, senior Research Editor to the Longman Dictionary.

    25. Re:MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL by tepples · · Score: 1

      Besides, another option is a TV. You can pick a 20" up for around $100.

      If you live in a dorm room, how will a 20" NTSC monitor fit? And once publishers stop making games for PS2 and games for the new consoles are unplayable on NTSC monitors (having screen text that's readable only on HD or requiring aiming at targets so small they can be clearly seen only on HD), then what happens?

    26. Re:MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL by CaymanIslandCarpedie · · Score: 1

      I bought Windows Media Center 2003 at Fry's
      Windows Media Center 2003 has never been available for retail purchase as just software. It only is available pre-installed on a computer.

      the validation key is printed on the outside of the package
      The activation codes are on the outside of the CD case which is inside a sealed box.

      and says that _every_ copy of WinXP now has to be validated over the phone
      I've NEVER had to validate over the phone and have probably installed about 50 WinXP installs which requried validation.

      In conclusion, you are a lieing FUD mongering ass-monkey. Have a nice day.

      --
      "reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
    27. Re:MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL by mustangsal66 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What, are you nuts??

      Oh you actually paid for your MS software....

      --
      Why worry? Each of us is wearing an unlicensed "nucular" accelerator on his back.
      Sig changed for readability by G.W.
    28. Re:MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL by Leebert · · Score: 1

      It was a free call, but if I knew how long it was going to take for the auto responder to read out really really long numbers for me to type then I would have just set up a DHCP server.

      I never use the autoresponder. If they're going to make me do this crap, it's going to COST them to have a person do it. And I spend 2 minutes complaining to the person every time.

    29. Re:MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL by le_defaut_tragique · · Score: 1

      I doubt anyone would deny the pure evil running through the collective veins of the cable industry. I'd say they're at least as bad as Microsoft and, because they've personally slighted me more than once, I think they may be worse.

    30. Re:MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL by Mehtuus · · Score: 1

      Open Source just doesn't have the marketing power that Microsoft does.

      That's because of all the sheep that pay the $$$'s in extortion tax to MS.

      People need to not just "think differently", they need to think smart. Taking the MS path will lock you into a software rut. Taking the Apple path will lock you into a hardware rut. A rut is a grave with both ends knocked out...

      Take a look at all of the available open software and you will see that you have many options available to you. Software and hardware on multiple platforms. That is not a rut. Plus you have the opportunity of saving some hard earned $$$.

      Paraphrased from Bruce Campbell: Think Smart, Think L-Smart.

      --
      http://mehtuus.googlepages.com
    31. Re:MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL by glitch23 · · Score: 0

      Luckily, these days linux is pretty nice, what with Ubuntu and all. You barely need to think any more when installing, and no annoying registration screens!

      Thats good. Most users barely think during *normal* operation of a PC.

      .
      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    32. Re:MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL by Xabraxas · · Score: 1
      Take a look at all of the available open software and you will see that you have many options available to you. Software and hardware on multiple platforms. That is not a rut. Plus you have the opportunity of saving some hard earned $$$.

      You're preaching to the choir. I use free software but the lack of marketing means that there is still a large majority of people that have never even heard of Linux or other free alternatives. Some people just have so much other shit on their minds that the last thing they think they need to think about is an operating system for their computer.

      --
      Time makes more converts than reason
    33. Re:MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I'm with ya on this but realisticaly, you have to look at what the "joe user" sees.

      First, all the talk about propriatary lockins make joe user think that the open source alternative won't work "with or like" what they use at work. This leaves them with the impression that it isn't for them.

      Second, i actualy met a customer who was pirating office 98 and refused to Try open office.org because "i only want to use the best software out there. If "free office" was better then microsoft's office they wouldn't be giving it away." I Tried to explain that even if it wasn't better then microsoft office, it was definatly better then office 98 and might have problem competing with office XP or so. She replied that the newer offices are just the same thing with all the updates already installed. All you have to do is download the updates and you have the same program. I gave up the argument and left her thinking she won.

      Third issue is that people are timmid about different stuff. I have users who insist on corel office instead of MS office because they can't stand the differences. One user actualy threatend to quit after i installed the damn access runtime from the develper CD so some third party app would work corectly. Open source software is nice and all but there are usualy enough differences to cause the same reactions. Alternative software also doesn't seem to be complete or as polished as MS and Apple software does. This maybe more of a factor of things being different then anythign else but the impresion is there.

      People just seem like they are being put out or punished when thye switch stuff. I have noticed this in non-desktop situations too. We installed registar terminals at a chain restaurant wich allowed touch screen input instead of the servers needing to remeber 4 digit item codes and inputing them. Almost all the servers that were there long enough to become familier with the old system disliked the new and the newer servers who didnt' spend much time on the old system didn't care.

      Something i also see about using open source software is all the fud or lockin that actualy comes from the schools. We hired some rookies right out of some certification school for onsite placement at a couple differing locations were the minor problems (adding users and such) are too much for the managment. One place runs a linux server hosting email, shares the internet and a very small one page website with contact info and location directions. With full root access to this server, the boy threw a fit and made me(went over my head) install and configure front page extentions so he can update the website and store hours. I got him back when his front page adjustments caused a column alignment issue when viewing from non microsoft browsers. He has to edit it by hand now.

      I have another problem getting the ability to use opensource software because there isn't very many seminars and sales people going out claiming thier platform can do mor ethen someone elses. Microsoft does this verry well. They leave the impression that they are the only- best- most cost effective- secure- and appropriate solution. They even take one of opensources strongest points and turns it around on them "future inter operability". I actualy attended an OEM seminar were someone asked about linux and the responce was that there is no specific direction linux is going in. They claimed that after you invested in it, everythign could change tomarow and you would have to redo all the cost. Microsoft is commited to thier customers and thier products would continune to be supported years down the road. Then the sinker is that there is no central support for linux and opensource. Of course this is fud but, the PHB's hear it and then opensource is tabbo.

      I guess i strayed a little from what the average users see with opensource instead of microsoft. In short the problem is change and uncertainty. It will always haunt any serious alternative software movment. I especialy find it interesting that most the problem in encounter is people fearing change while another good bit is people not getting enough or as much information about alternative software in a marketable way. Microsoft realy has a monoply on making dumb people think they know what they are doing.

    34. Re:MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL by Mehtuus · · Score: 1

      You brought up a lot of good points. The biggest of which IMO is that people in general don't like change. Even if it is for the better.

      --
      http://mehtuus.googlepages.com
    35. Re:MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL by slashdot.org · · Score: 1

      In conclusion, you are a lieing FUD mongering ass-monkey. Have a nice day.

      Whatever dude. So I made a mistake. It's actually Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005. Big FUCKING deal. I'm sure you've never made a mistake in your life and you know what, good for you.

      And, yes it's an OEM version. The whole think came exactly as it was displayed in the Fry's display case (Palo Alto, in the CPU case on the bottom); a smallish booklet, the CD (or DVD, whatever) inside a thing plastic wrap, which has on the OUTSIDE the label with the reg. code.

      I've NEVER had to validate over the phone and have probably installed about 50 WinXP installs which requried validation.

      Yes, well I didn't believe that either. My point was that whatever I bought at Fry's had already been registered and that the support people couldn't explain that to me, or probably more importantly, consider that a serious problem.

      So I don't know what your fucking point is, because I've no idea why I would want to make up such a story.

  18. Same as last month? by QuietLagoon · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Is this the same exploit that was reported last month?

  19. This was done about two months ago... by __aaahtg7394 · · Score: 4, Informative

    This was discovered by multiple people months ago, as evidenced by this full-disclosure thread, with a followup by another discoverer of the same exploit.

  20. Oh no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    DVD Jon has been out-sourced to India!

  21. Would hackers support MS? by Bifurcati · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I wonder - if Microsoft were to post hacking requests/challenges/whatever of security measures like this before they were released commercially, and actually invite people to hack it, would hackers respond?

    I mean, I'm fairly certain they would try and hack it (it's there, after all...) but would they, in general, give the info to MS, or would they (out of altruism for future consumers, or just out of spite) keep their hacks to themselves so that they could be used effectively against the product.

    It just seems that these things are always cracked relatively quickly - couldn't microsoft somehow incorporate this into their pre-release coding cycle? I guess, though, they don't want to release their programs before they, er, release them.

    1. Re:Would hackers support MS? by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 1


      I mean, I'm fairly certain they would try and hack it (it's there, after all...) but would they, in general, give the info to MS, or would they (out of altruism for future consumers, or just out of spite) keep their hacks to themselves so that they could be used effectively against the product.

      For every malicious hacker out there that would keep the info to themselves, there's at least one of comparable skill and slightly lesser maliciousness who would give the info to Microsoft for various reasons (altruism, fame, bragging rights, resume material, etc.).

      In short, hackers would respond. The strategy you advocate would probably be quite successful.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    2. Re:Would hackers support MS? by cornjones · · Score: 1

      I wonder - if Microsoft were to post hacking requests/challenges/whatever of security measures like this before they were released commercially, and actually invite people to hack it, would hackers respond?

      They do this already. They did it for Windows 2000 at the least. I think there was even a prize if you could do it. When the OS released it was "secure". It would take all of 5 minutes to root a win 2k box now but that is b/c these exploits are difficult to find. Finding them generally takes a lot of time and effort.

      It is of course a good idea to get people to try to hack your "secure" stuff anyways. It brings to mind a quote from the evil overlord list: "When I am an evil overlord, I will run all my nefarious schemes by an average 5 year old child and fix any holes he can point out."

    3. Re:Would hackers support MS? by w98 · · Score: 1

      There's this article to show that hackers do work with Microsoft.

      There was another article I read within the last few weeks (zdnet maybe, I can't remember) that mentioned how MS was going to set up a network of boxes and literally invite hackers to break into them, with the specific intent of finding the common holes that hackers get into, and security procedures that hackers commonly circumvent, to make a better product.

      Now, my gut tells me that the guys who break into a PC to make it send out spam all day long (all the while selling that PC's cpu cycles for $0.05/day) will more than likely NOT share their information with Microsoft.

  22. Sharpie - Sony CD Award Goes To... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    Camera opens to a busy office site with meetings meeting, conferences conferencing, and engineers engineering, all with the air of determination to keep this secret from ever seeing the light of day.

    Next scene; a bored indian software engineer reading /. and has a few minutes to kill before the wife servers dinner...

    By the way, where could a disinterested person download a copy of the source so as to "verify" the authentiscity of the minor discovery?

    1. Re:Sharpie - Sony CD Award Goes To... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'm glad I'm not the only one who always makes that damn "serves = servers" typo.

  23. legit user by Demoknight · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ive used the program and put the little token into their site and it still wouldnt let me download something (cant remember what it was right now) so even with this crack or if youre legit you might still be out of luck :D

  24. Not a true crack by andycal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the doc linked to:
    >6. After downloading "GenuineCheck.exe", run it on the machine running a genuine copy of Windows XP.
    > It will generate a code which is used for WGA validation. Copy the code and use the same code to
    >validate a pirated copy of Windows XP and bypass the WGA.

    But that's bogus, you still need "access" to a authentic copy to perform this hack. It's not really a hack at all.

    But sadly this will only make it easier for people unwilling to pay for windows to continue to use it. It would be better if they had to find a cheeper (legal) solution.

    1. Re:Not a true crack by RonnyJ · · Score: 3, Interesting
      But that's bogus, you still need "access" to a authentic copy to perform this hack. It's not really a hack at all.

      Agreed. Microsoft could either restrict WGA downloads to only those using IE with ActiveX, or provide an alternative way for browsers to get past WGA. They did, and the simple/most user-friendly way is to get the user to download a program which will generate a key.

      There's no way that Microsoft could know that you were running the program on a different machine. It's an inherent weakness of the system, but one Microsoft needed to make to allow non-IE/ActiveX browsers to work with WGA.

    2. Re:Not a true crack by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 2, Insightful


      But that's bogus, you still need "access" to a authentic copy to perform this hack. It's not really a hack at all.

      Agreed...I'd be much more impressed with a cracked Windows install that bypassed this GenuineAdvantage crap entirely, or a crack for the algorithm that generates this key code in the first place.

      Being tied to an authentic copy of XP leaves you vulnerable to blacklisting, and when that happens, the 'genuine' Windows product is in the shit as well.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    3. Re:Not a true crack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sense a disturbance in the force as High School computer lab administrators everywhere cower in fear...

    4. Re:Not a true crack by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Insightful
      But that's bogus, you still need "access" to a authentic copy to perform this hack. It's not really a hack at all.

      Hmmm ... really? From wiki
      # Hack is a slang term in technology culture which has a number of meanings depending on context, including a joke, a programming exploit, or a commercial software break-in.

      I'd say an exploit is well-accepted as a hack. In is in. You do get bonus points for pretty, but it isn't mandatory.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:Not a true crack by accelleron · · Score: 1

      "But sadly this will only make it easier for people unwilling to pay for windows to continue to use it. It would be better if they had to find a cheeper (legal) solution." Can someone please hand me a penguin to bash this man over the head with?

      --
      Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped.
    6. Re:Not a true crack by m50d · · Score: 1

      How long until someone makes a key generator? Which windows XP serials are valid is already known, and there's not much else the program could be using to make its key (there's no challenge/response element because it doesn't know which program download corresponts to which access, unless I'm mistaken), so surely the algorithm can be reverse engineered and there you are?

      --
      I am trolling
    7. Re:Not a true crack by Loonacy · · Score: 1

      Pretty soon you'll probably see worms that go from computer to computer, generating a key, then sending it out over the 'net. Even if it doesn't spread very far, it would generate a lot of problems for WGA.

    8. Re:Not a true crack by andycal · · Score: 1

      Can someone please hand me a penguin to bash this man over the head with?

      Not sure why I need bashed. My point was that the harder it is to continue to use windows the more likely it becomes that the user might switch to something easier (penguin friendly).

  25. hurts the anti OSS argument, or should by capicu · · Score: 2, Funny

    This sort of thing should be fatal for the argument that "if anyone can see the source, anyone can find exploits", but for now at least, Microsoft has the stronger orbital mind-control ray.

  26. Old news... by logik3x · · Score: 1

    It has been exploited before.. it's nothing new... and you don't need that if you use a proper keygen and pirated windows version so this is pretty useless... who cares?

  27. i would like to say ... by Triumph+The+Insult+C · · Score: 1

    that i'd like to quote any one of the number of people who asked "and we are surprised by this why?" in today's earlier story about microsoft stopping unix/linux antivirus software

    --
    vodka, straight up, thank you!
  28. What?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone call Microsoft. We found someone who isn't already using the corp version of XP with a "legitimate" key... er, not that it works of course... ahem.

  29. impenetrable? by dioscaido · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Where does that "impenetrable" quote come from? MS has pretty openly stated that they know that protection mechanisms like Activation can, and will, be cracked. They have been pretty clear that these mechanisms are in place more for the hobbyist or mom-and-pop user, than the people that would actively seek out cracks/pirate software.

    1. Re:impenetrable? by rbarreira · · Score: 1

      I think it comes from Monty Python:

      We're Knights of the Redmond Table.
      Our procetions are impenetrable,
      But many times we're given tasks
      That are quite procrastinatable.


      Feel free to adapt the whole song :P

      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
    2. Re:impenetrable? by rbarreira · · Score: 1

      Err, procetions = protections...

      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
    3. Re:impenetrable? by lseltzer · · Score: 1

      Exactly right. The point of WGA and activation are not to defeat determined pirates, but to let people who unwittingly bought pirated versions know that they did.

    4. Re:impenetrable? by Epistax · · Score: 1

      Simple. You are unable to have sexual relations with this security protocol. I thought that obvious.

    5. Re:impenetrable? by SysGoddess · · Score: 1
      The point of WGA and activation are not to defeat determined pirates, but to let people who unwittingly bought pirated versions know that they did.

      Don't think that Microsoft is above getting John Doe warrants for one or two individuals in Bumfuckt, Idaho, Slipittome, Georgia, and Kissyosista, Louisiana, for pirated versions of Windows XP to make a strong point. Let's just call it Operation Sundevil Lite.

      Of course, Bubba not only happens to have a pirated version of Winders XP but Mickey$oft Office Perfessional and copies of Deer Hunter, Deer Hunter Avenger, and 20 other redneck favourites on his computer that Mickey$oft kindly informs the BSA about.

      --

      Thus spake the SysGoddess
  30. What's the point? by mpontes · · Score: 4, Informative
    I downloaded this out of curiosity, the only thing it contains is a DOC file with instructions.

    Anyway, what's the point of doing this? You can still download things from Microsoft's site if you don't validate. You just have to pick the "Don't validate" option. Oooh, great, some guy made it so you don't have to click the annoying "No, thanks" button every time you want to download Microsoft Anti-Spyware!

    The *real* challenge is to crack the activation algorithm. (which I belive that has some form of the RSA algorithm in it). People, WGA != activation. Activation is the one that's a bitch. If you happen to mess with your hardware in your Windows box a lot, you'll know what I mean. And since I can never use the Internet activation because I "Already used that code too many times" (Swapping IDE hard drives once in a while for backups with Windows is out of the question now?), I end up having to call Miss Microsoft Robot all the time, who always tells me it's very important to use Windows Update to protect my computer from viruses before she gives me my activation code.

    --
    Bored? Browse Slashdot with a +6 modifier for Troll comme
    1. Re:What's the point? by wo1verin3 · · Score: 1

      Not all downloads have the don't validate option, however if you're using a mac (or possibly on a PC with the right browser and configuration identifying itself as a mac) you don't see the validation at all.

    2. Re:What's the point? by avdp · · Score: 4, Informative

      The "No, thanks" option is supposed to go away at some point in the near future. Also Windows Update will not run without WGA in the near future as well.

    3. Re:What's the point? by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Activation is the one that's a bitch. If you happen to mess with your hardware in your Windows box a lot, you'll know what I mean. And since I can never use the Internet activation because I "Already used that code too many times"

      Yeah, that's why it is a good idea to have a copy of the corporate install laying around. Even if you're legally licensed to use XP, that activation scheme is problematic. Solution? Install from corp edition CD that doesn't require activation. Probably a technical violation of some obscure license term, but I don't care.

      I paid my money, I refuse to be inconvenienced.
      --
      Who did what now?
    4. Re:What's the point? by CoderBob · · Score: 1

      You can download all the service packs you want, but you can't run them on a blacklisted serial. This would allow the 50 billion people using the RHQQ2 key a method of getting a key that will allow them to get SP1 & 2.

    5. Re:What's the point? by mpontes · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wrong. It was the WGA that was cracked, not the activation scheme. The program doesn't generate you a valid serial, it only generates you a valid WGA serial, which is still pretty useless. If you're running an illegal version of Windows, your serial will still be the same blacklisted one.

      --
      Bored? Browse Slashdot with a +6 modifier for Troll comme
    6. Re:What's the point? by CoderBob · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the correction then. I had always understood that it was a WGA serial they used for the SP validation.

  31. Oh, oh by overshoot · · Score: 1, Funny
    Now piracy will flourish and Microsoft will have to raise their prices to stay in business.

    Just remember, anyone who pirates Microsoft software is raising your prices! Turn them in to the BSA today!

    /sarcasm>

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    1. Re:Oh, oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No really, who actually gives MS money? WTF are people dumb? You can get Windows for free... I'll admit my first PC came w/ Win3.1, so I'm guilty of feeding the beast once. But that's it. Stop giving them money and maybe they'll go away...

    2. Re:Oh, oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah sure, turn in your friend, your neighbor, the baker, and the candlestick maker for running pirate Windows. Soon we'll all be turning in each other for pirate software or any other little thing that the big corporations think should be controlled or banned. Soon the citizens of the whole world will be behind bars or indebted to some corporation to repay "damages" for wrongdoing and we'll be no better than the slaves of the ancient world. Those not under control will be staring out at a desolute world living in concrete houses with slotted windows with faint memories and embossed certificates for being such good corporate supporters.

      Thanks.

      (I am not a script, I am a free man!)

  32. Great.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we're now outsourcing hackers/crackers?

  33. Microsoft made me a Linux user by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have moved all 5 of my home computers, and 3 of my work computers, to Linux because Windows is, among other deficiencies, too much trouble. I have friends who are currently doing the same thing.

    The only trouble I have with Linux is that it is not as widely accepted as Windows, but I see that changing more and more lately.

    How much user base is Microsoft going to have to lose before they "get a clue"? Never cause your users an inconvenience.

    1. Re:Microsoft made me a Linux user by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since we all know Linux has no UI problems whatsoever and is 100% easy to use.

    2. Re:Microsoft made me a Linux user by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing in this world is perfect. There are, however, some operating systems which are better than others - such as Linux, Unix and Apple being superior to Windows. If this weren't the case, then there wouldn't be such a large migration from Windows.

    3. Re:Microsoft made me a Linux user by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gawd, I thought I told Taco to turn off this bot.

    4. Re:Microsoft made me a Linux user by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Since we all know Linux has no UI problems whatsoever and is 100% easy to use.

      And you have some operating system in mind that is?

  34. Fortifications by jd · · Score: 3, Interesting
    There is a castle, located in the Middle East, that was so well designed that it was virtually impossible for an attacker to break in by force.


    Today, it would be possible to build a damn-near invincible fortress - use granite blocks of a similar size as those for the large stones in Stonehenge as bricks, have them interlock so that shockwaves can be carried non-destructively, and build it as a gigantic geodesic dome so that impacts are tangental and not perpendicular.


    This isn't "fool-proof" (fools are way too ingenious) but it would offer a formidable target that would be hard to punch through.


    Can you create something analogous in software, where the design is such that the "impact" of an attack is less likely to break through?


    Yes. The standard network "firewall" is just an electronic castle, permitting traffic only through controlled gates. A portcullis arrangement (two back-to-back firewalls with a NIDS system in the middle) would provide a stronger fortification, if historic warfare is any guide.


    The dome arrangement, where impacts are distributed so that no one component ever takes the brunt of the sttack, would be analogous to using a highly distributed security model, where different components in the model have to validate for the communication to be accepted. That way, exploits in any one component are of no value, unless absolutely identical flaws exist in ALL the components.


    Ok, so we've got a system that offers some semblance of security. Can it still do anything, without that security being compromised? After all, anyone can make a 100% secure computer by turning it off.


    Depends on how secure you want something. Let's take the key validation that Microsoft wants. What you want is non-duplicatable information. Easy enough - print a 1024-bit "public key" on the packet, which matches a private key on the validating server. Use the key to generate a unique ID, which is copied onto the computer. Any subsequent communication has to match the unique ID and the public key.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:Fortifications by ZosX · · Score: 1

      Yeah, damned near impregnable until the air force flies in with cruise missiles. You would have to build it DEEP underground and they have some nifty tactical nukes that will quickly eliminate that problem. You simply cannot build a fortress anymore. A highly mobile, covert force would be much more effective. Just ask the Vietnamese.

      I do agree with the multiple NIDS though, especially if the NIDS software is not the same on both ends. Its always at least a good failsafe to let you know that your firewall is operating effectively.

    2. Re:Fortifications by The+Welcome+Rain · · Score: 1

      Roger Cheswick has made a career for decades in explaining the problems with the castle-wall theory of computer defense. apparently he did so in vain, for there's always some clothpate who doesn't get the word.

      --
      Some keywords for the NSA in the Lord of the Rings universe: One Ring bind find Sauron quest Nazgul freedom
    3. Re:Fortifications by Reorax · · Score: 1

      Roger Cheswick has made a career for decades in explaining the problems with the castle-wall theory of computer defense. apparently he did so in vain, for there's always some clothpate who doesn't get the word.

      There's only one word in that sentence that I don't get, and it sure as hell doesn't involve security. Congratulations, you have invented a word that even Google cannot find.

      --
      This sig is only here so people stop skipping the last lines of my posts.
    4. Re:Fortifications by tomhudson · · Score: 3, Funny
      Roger Cheswick has made a career for decades in explaining the problems with the castle-wall theory of computer defense. apparently he did so in vain, for there's always some clothpate who doesn't get the word.

      There's only one word in that sentence that I don't get, and it sure as hell doesn't involve security. Congratulations, you have invented a word that even Google cannot find.

      clothpate
      cloth: rag
      pate: head
      Putting them together is an exercise left for the reader.
    5. Re:Fortifications by big+tex · · Score: 1

      Today, it would be possible to build a damn-near invincible fortress - use granite blocks of a similar size as those for the large stones in Stonehenge as bricks, have them interlock so that shockwaves can be carried non-destructively, and build it as a gigantic geodesic dome so that impacts are tangental and not perpendicular.

      I'll take your impenetrable fortress and see you rock splitters and some patience. Hell, any holes you leave for defense become quite literal chinks in your armor for me to exploit.

      Please. Do not temp me and my civil engineering brethren with something unbreakable.
      I expect only the same from the computer scientists vis-a-vis encryption and digital security.

      --
      I think I need a new sig here.
    6. Re:Fortifications by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 1

      This isn't "fool-proof" (fools are way too ingenious) but it would offer a formidable target that would be hard to punch through.

      The key is understanding that an attacker won't meet you on your terms. You will almost always be able to control some aspect effectively. Therefore, for me to be successful, I must avoid engaging you with the aspect that you have designed.

      Certainly, you could build an impentrable fortress. So what? I could

      • drop cluster-bombs, thereby consuming all the oxygen.
      • Drop a chem-bio weapons, circumventing the wall
      • Lay seige, until you starved.
      • Nuke you. You might be shielded from the blast, but the radiation would nonetheless get you.
      • Have someone from inside your wall give me the key.
      The point is: of course you can make a wall stronger than I can break. So I have to do something besides attempt to break it. And that is exactly how software cracking works; otherwise, we'd all be brute-force attackers.
      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    7. Re:Fortifications by Eric_Cartman_South_P · · Score: 1
      Can you create something analogous in software, where the design is such that the "impact" of an attack is less likely to break through?

      Yeah, it's called Unix.

    8. Re:Fortifications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You people need to take a look at that special they had on the Discovery Channel awhile back about the construction of NORAD. It is built to either withstand a point-blank nuclear bomb or close to point-blank.

      Of course, it's tunneled into the side of the mountain and structurally reinforced in creative ways to accomplish this feat. It was an excellent example of a well-engineered structure.

    9. Re:Fortifications by dcam · · Score: 1

      There is a castle, located in the Middle East, that was so well designed that it was virtually impossible for an attacker to break in by force.

      The castle you are thinking of is Krak des Chavalier. And I quote:

      "Built by the Crusaders in 1150, it took 100 years to complete. Despite its formidable position and 4000 strong garrison, it fell to Sultan Baibars in 1271"

      --
      meh
    10. Re:Fortifications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going to have to say that, without outside help from an army, I'm certain that NORAD could be quarried out of the mountain the same way it was dug into the mountain. Why not? No need for nuclear weapons - just dig it out. Might take a while, but I'm just not seeing 'invincible' as a possible adjective.

    11. Re:Fortifications by ewe2 · · Score: 1

      I don't think you're actually getting what the parent's point is. Fortifications are great to have if you can be sure the enemy really wants what you're supposedly guarding.

      Or if you really think they have no other way of getting around them. Intel is touting Trusted computing, trying to sell the idea that hardware will itself prevent piracy. Of course, anyone who believes them is delusional.

      --
      insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
    12. Re:Fortifications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Blah blah blah...Ok, so we've got a system that offers some semblance of security. Can it still do anything, without that security being compromised? After all, anyone can make a 100% secure computer by turning it off.....blah blah".

      Really? And there was me thinking that it can be made insecure by switching it back on again either by being there or remotely (ever heard of wake up on lan?) I suggest you go back to reading up on computer security as it's pretty clear from your post that you don't know anything.

    13. Re:Fortifications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "Built by the Crusaders in 1150, it took 100 years to complete. Despite its formidable position and 4000 strong garrison, it fell to Sultan Baibars in 1271"

      The attackers didn't break in by force. They tricked the garrison into surrendering without battle.

    14. Re:Fortifications by TimeSprout's+Mom · · Score: 2, Informative

      I believe he meant 'clodpate'. It's in Websters.

      --


      My son, my son.
    15. Re:Fortifications by mattpalmer1086 · · Score: 1

      Hmmmm... I have to take issue with your description of how easy it would be for MS to have really secure key validation.

      >print a 1024-bit "public key" on the packet, which matches a private key on the validating server.

      OK. That's almost sensible. Except that 1024 bits are 128 ASCII chars. Some of them are unprintable, so using some form of encoding like base 64 would give you 512 characters. That's quite a lot to type for a user to type in, and how do you know you have a legitimate copy of windows and not a Mafia-Hacked (tm) version. Why not use one of those digitally signed "certificate" things people tend to like for public key validation. Anyway, we'll assume that all users have the same Microsoft public key.

      > Use the key to generate a unique ID

      Here is where it starts getting a bit vague. Generate a unique ID from the same number that all the users have how exactly? Or do you mean that a number is *somehow* generated and then encrypted using the public key?

      > which is copied onto the computer.

      OK. So now I can copy that number off the computer and onto another one. What prevents me from doing this? How is the number tied to the machine?

      > Any subsequent communication...

      What communication? You haven't mentioned any so far. I'll assume that somehow in an earlier stage, you sent the number you generated to microsoft. Possibly encrypted by the public key.

      > has to match the unique ID and the public key.

      What do you mean, *match*? Do you mean that the conversation is encrypted using these numbers? So how do Microsoft know that I'm not simply replaying a communication I intercepted from another machine? How do Microsoft know that the number I generated is a *valid* number? Anyone can make up a number, encrypt it with the publicly avaiable public key, and send it to Microsoft.

      I guess you knew what you meant when you wrote the post, but just throwing around the magic words "public key" doesnt' solve the actual security problem, which is to know that the copy of windows running was purchased legitimately.

      (BTW: most security people define Availability as a key concept (CIA: Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability). So unfortunately turning the PC off doesn't make it secure. Well - it may make the PC hardware secure from remote attack, but not the information it's being used to manage, nor the physical machine itself.

    16. Re:Fortifications by karlandtanya · · Score: 1
      Please. Do not temp me and my civil engineering brethren with something unbreakable.


      Shouldn't that be mechanicals?


      Cause, y'know, mechanical engineers build weapons...

      --
      "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
    17. Re:Fortifications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a castle, located in the Middle East, that was so well designed that it was virtually impossible for an attacker to break in by force.

      Thats an easy one, surround the castle, pull far enough back so their ranged weapons cant hit you. Cut off their supply lines and starve them to death.

    18. Re:Fortifications by jd · · Score: 1
      Ok, a little more explanation, and some corrections:


      1. User types in their copy ID.
      2. User types in their private key.
      3. Microsoft installs the public key onto a key exchange and generation system
      4. User's machine connects to the key exchange and sends the copy ID to it
      5. The key exchange encrypts the authentication server's public key with the user's public key and sends that to the user's machine
      6. The user's machine connects to the registration system and sends both the copy ID and the user's private key encrypted with the registration machine's public key
      7. The registration machine connects to the key exchange, using the copy ID, and obtains the user's public key (encrypted using the user's public key, which it then decrypts with the private key)
      8. The registration machine checks the copy ID has not yet been assigned and, if not:
        1. Generates a random string and associates it with the user's ID and keys
        2. Passes the random string back as an access password
        3. Passes back instructions to Windows and applications to be "unlocked"

      9. All future access to Microsoft systems must first connect to the registration machine as a Kerberos V authentication server. The user's ID is the username, the random string is the password. Connections are encrypted using the registration system's public key (to the server) and using the user's public key (to the user's machine).
      10. All other Microsoft facilities are accessed by means of the Kerberos token


      The first part of the theory of this is that the ID can only be used once for registration and then subsequently only used for authentication purposes.


      The second part is that by having three sentry posts to get by, breaking into any one of them is useless. You'd need to break into all three and make compatiable changes to all of them to be effective. Possible, but substantially harder, as the external interfaces needn't accept non-encrypted connections.


      The third part is that the user isn't entering just any old key, they are entering a decryption key associated with that user ID, which would make key generating software useless, as only the listed UNUSED keys will be valid. (A user ID/key pair may only be used once, in this arrangement, and is then locked from ever being used to unlock a system again.)


      If a system needs to be reinstalled, you'd have to "reset" that key to unlocked. In so doing, it would eliminate the random password string, invalidating any other person who had that same registration, so time-limiting anyone who did bypass this arrangement.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    19. Re:Fortifications by mattpalmer1086 · · Score: 1

      Wow - you put some effort into that. However, the explanation isn't really complete - you aren't using your own terminology consistently, and I still believe your approach suffers from several important and fatal weaknesses. Let's try to tighten up the definitions a little:

      So we have the User U, a key exchange X, and an registration server R.

      U has a copyid and a private key u_priv.

      X has the user's public key u_pub

      R has it's own public key r_pub and generates a random string rand.

      E_key{ message } means encrypt message using key.

      The protocol then runs:

      i) U->X: copyid
      ii) X->U: E_u_pub{ r_pub }
      iii) U->R: E_r_pub{ copyid | u_priv }
      iv) R->X: copyid
      v) X->R: E_u_pub{ u_pub }
      vi) R->U: rand | unlock_instructions

      That's my reading of what you wrote; I may have some details wrong, but it's not possible to say from your description. Anyway, taking that protocol as given, let's see where it needs some work.

      Assumptions:
      1. Is the copyid unique? I'm assuming it is.

      Questions:
      1. How does the user get their private key?
      2. How does the key exchange get the user's public key?
      3. (ii) Rather than using a round of communication to get R's public key to the user, why not just give the user the registration server's public key in a certificate? Will it be changing frequently?
      4. (iii) Never give out a private key in a communication protocol. There are other ways of authenticating that don't create this weakness.
      5. (iv) How is the copyid associated with the user's public key? Step (i) only sends a copyid - but no way of binding the two together.
      6. Why are you bothering to protect the user's public key by encrypting it with itself? Public keys are supposed to be public. If it's to allow the use of the private key (which now has to be transmitted) to produce the public key I see what you're trying to do - it provides origin authentication of the user, but it's a really, really nasty way of doing it, and pretty much completely backwards from how public and private keys are supposed to be used and managed.
      7) The random string is the shared secret between the user and microsoft. How is this communication protected? As it stands in your description, the string is sent back unencrypted.

      Problems:

      The security problem is to ensure that the copy of windows is legitimate and is only running on one PC.

      1. Most of your protocol seems to be concerned with protecting the confidentiality of the messages exchanged between client and server. There are plenty of good ways of doing this already which are far more secure. SSL/TLS, for example. Don't roll your own security - you will not get it right most times.
      2. The result of the protocol is to bind a copyid to a public user key and a random password. What prevents me from using this on many machines?
      3. It doesn't solve the problem of preventing piracy. It's simply a rather convoluted key exchange mechanism, of which there are many far simpler, more efficient, and provably more secure methods available.

      Forgive me if I sound a little harsh, but you sound like someone who knows a reasonable amount about how public/private key encryption works, but hasn't studied security much.

    20. Re:Fortifications by The+Welcome+Rain · · Score: 1

      I didn't invent it. There's an old story among the Marines about John Paul Jones. When he delivered his famous line, "I have not yet begun to fight!", a Marine was heard to say: "There's always some clothpate as doesn't get the word."

      --
      Some keywords for the NSA in the Lord of the Rings universe: One Ring bind find Sauron quest Nazgul freedom
    21. Re:Fortifications by The+Welcome+Rain · · Score: 1

      Yes, and if you were paying attention, you'd see the analogy to computer systems.

      The users are the biggest weakness.

      Train them or die.

      --
      Some keywords for the NSA in the Lord of the Rings universe: One Ring bind find Sauron quest Nazgul freedom
    22. Re:Fortifications by jd · · Score: 1
      Yeah, it's a system I've been developing for some time to produce a three-way trust system, where you can have one untrusted user and two servers such that the compromising of one server will not lead to the compromising of the entire system. It's a tough problem, as it does seem to contradict the Byzantine General's Problem.

      Let's see if I can answer your questions:

      • The user's private key would be printed in an ASCII armored format on their CD box
      • The key exchange has a database of every single public key ever generated, each being attached to the corresponding copy ID
      • The registration server's private key would be session-based. This validates that the user has logged into the key exchange -and- that their copy ID corresponds to their key (this is the first chance the system has of detecting mistypes and errors)
        • To make the key session-based, we need to add some extra steps:
        • Once the user has been validated by the key exchange, the key exchange will generate a session public/private key pair for the registration server
        • The registration server would have a fixed key which the key exchange would use to send the private key and the source IP address of the connecting machine of the user
      • You are correct on the giving out of private keys. I am unsure what to replace that with, as unlocking with the copy ID is pointless - we verified that component in the first round
      • There would be a table on the key exchange server, with the mapping (copy ID -> copy Public Key). NB: The private key isn't kept here, so that an intruder couldn't obtain the corresponding private key for a given copy ID.
      • You're right, the idea of encrypting the public key with itself is to prove the origin of the connection to the key exchange is the same as the origin of the connection to the registration server and that neither communication has been tampered with. It is also intended to eliminate aliases of the public key, so as to reduce the risk of false registrations and false rejections.
      • My mistake here - the user would get the random string encrypted with their public key.

      I agree that rolling my own security is a Bad Idea, but there is a problem here that classical security protocols don't generally address. Most systems assume you have two trusted individuals - let's call them Bob and Alice - and that they are communicating over an untrusted network.

      Here, we have a more complex situation, in which one (or even both) may not be trustable. We don't necessarily need to know, in this case, which machines are untrusted, only that the user is or is not one of them. Once we know that, we can freeze connections and infer the rest.

      Once a user has been issued the random string, the registration server would store that string in relation to the key and ID. An attempt to register the same key and ID for another machine would fail, as the passkey entry in the database is not null. (Using a different combination of keys and IDs would also fail, as only the valid combination will get the user the session key.)

      If a machine genuinely needs to reinstall, it would require a call to blank-out the passkey entry in the database. At that point, anyone who had stolen the complete combination would be locked out, as they would have the old passkey which would no longer be valid.

      There is no system that can "solve" piracy. Let's say you have a 100% perfect system, doesn't matter what form it takes, that makes certain changes to the system to unlock it. Any sufficiently skilled programmer could fire up a hex editor and make the corresponding changes manually.

      If the system needed to get input from some external trusted source, a skilled programmer could easily cut that segment out of the program and replace it with something that LOOKED the same, from the code's perspective. T

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    23. Re:Fortifications by jd · · Score: 1
      That is very true. The best way to get past a security program is to not go through it but to circumvent it. The best you can do is to think of all probable ways of circumventing and take those into account.


      By having interlocking layers, you can make it such that failure to cross one layer correctly will make it substantially harder (or impossible) to cross any other layer.


      In the case of a fort, that is why you would typically have an outer fortified wall, an inner fortified castle wall, and THEN have an inner keep (which itself is heavily fortified) in the center.


      In the case of a military organization or security organization, you would read up on the Byzantine General's Problem, which describes how to solve these issues when involving people.


      In the case of software, you can use encryption to produce a certain level of validation, and a mix of keys and certificates to provide authentication. (Any string can be used to encrypt, but unless you have the decryption string, the encrypted traffic is useless. Thus, you can use getting through one level as the means of selecting the key. If you don't get through that level correctly, the key will be random and therefore unbreakable.)


      So what you have are the following levels:


      • Key providing service, for generating the keys needed, handing them to those who need them and nothing else
      • User authentication service, which verifies that the keys being handed out match the user they are supposed to be handed out to
      • Session authentication service, which verifies that the user is authorized to connect to the desired service
      • Gatekeeper service, which ensures that the user who has been authenticated and authorized is the same user who is actually doing the accessing


      To meet the trust requirements (as any given service can be compromised), you need at least 3 of the 5 machines to be trustable. Which 3 is not important, so a hostile user AND the compromise of ANY of the above components is detectable and within the system's capabilities of trapping.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    24. Re:Fortifications by jd · · Score: 1

      If you cannot tell the difference between asleep and turned off, I'm going to guess you're not only incompetent at electronics, but also have had no success in social relationships, either.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    25. Re:Fortifications by Craig+Davison · · Score: 1



      I know this has no bearing on what you're saying, but you're wrong about the 512 characters. 1 byte for every 4 encoded characters would mean 2 bits are represented by each encoded character. That's pretty inefficient. Even using just the characters 0-9A-F (4 bits) as your encoding would result in an encoded length of 256.

      128 bytes can be represented in base64 with 175 characters:
      $ dd if=/dev/random count=128 bs=1 | openssl base64 | wc -m
      175

    26. Re:Fortifications by big+tex · · Score: 1

      Large structure demolition (buildings, bridges,etc) and the drill-and-shoot world are are all civil engineers. OK, some are mining engineers (civils with an aversion to sunlight)

      --
      I think I need a new sig here.
    27. Re:Fortifications by mattpalmer1086 · · Score: 1



      You are absolutely right about that. I did a back of the envelope calculation without checking how it really worked at all ;) Now there's a security lesson for me.

      Still, the basic point holds - you don't want your users typing in a key that long. Most will not get it right, even on the third attempt. I get 20 character licence keys wrong pretty often on the first attempt.

      cheers,

      Matt

    28. Re:Fortifications by mattpalmer1086 · · Score: 1

      It's an interesting problem alright. If I have understood you correctly, the goals are to:

      1) Register a unique copy of software with the vendor using 2 servers.
      2) That the compromise of one of these servers will not compromise the security of the entire system. Security in this context presumably meaning that the attacker cannot use the compromise to validate arbitrary client machines of his choosing.
      3) Provide an online validation method for clients to authenticate their copy and allow it to run each time it is (Logged in? Turned on?)

      In practice, most validation schemes attempt to operate off-line for the most part. They may attempt to cryptographically bind a licence key to the machine using some kind of hardware audit when initially registering, avoiding the need for constant online re-validation. Anyway, we'll set aside the obvious scalability problems of forcing online validation globally for all systems, as that is part of your stated goal.

      We should also state the assumption that, while the client may be untrusted in the sense that it may attempt to abuse licence keys, we have to trust that the client operating system itself is functioning correctly. If we accept the possibility that the client operating system has been modified, the servers become irrelevant, as the validation checks could simply be bypassed in the first place. There are, of course, ways of making this quite difficult, although, as ever, if you put heavy security in one place, you are inviting attack in another.

      With this in mind, the problem then becomes how does a trusted client operating system obtain validation to operate using a valid licence key from a vendor using 2 untrusted servers, over an untrusted network, in such a way that:

      (1) if only one of the servers is compromised, the attacker does not gain enough to validate arbitrary clients, and
      (2) only one copy of an unmodified client operating system with a particular id can operate simultaneously.

      Have I understood the problem correctly?

  35. Asymmetrical motivation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Both generals were talking about some kind of conventional warfare. Microsoft vs the hackers isn't conventional warfare. It is a lot closer to guerilla warfare. Against guerillas, a fortress is good protection. Of course, as Mao pointed out, the guerillas may be able to let their enemy rot in their fortified cities. That may be closer to what's happening here. Microsoft may be like the conventional army which alienates the population. When that happens, the war is as good as lost.

    Like the IRA said to Margaret Thatcher: "You have to be lucky always, we only have to be lucky once." Microsoft is in the same situation. The battle is ultimately for the hearts and minds of computer users everywhere. If Microsoft makes a pain of itself in its attempts to defend its territory, their customers will eventually defect to the other side.

    btw: Things have changed in Northern Ireland. The population is becoming VERY disenchanted with the IRA. Many Catholics now hate them more than they hate the Brits and regard them as little better than organized criminals. Similarly, with many years of hard work, Microsoft could regain its good name (but I'm not holding my breath).

    1. Re:Asymmetrical motivation by mwillems · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      >>Against guerillas, a fortress is good protection

      No, it is not. Against stpuid armies it is. Guerillas just walk pas the wall pretending to be peasants. Think Green Line. Think Viet Cong. Hamas. Etc.

      As for the argument "You have to be lucky always, we only have to be lucky once" - that is often heard but is shows a total lack of simple maths. It is mathematically unsound if you do not take the probabilities into account. "Once lucky at 0.00000000001% chance" is a lot LESS likely than "1000 times lucky at 99% chance".

      --

      ---
      BDOS ERR ON A:>
    2. Re:Asymmetrical motivation by CarpetShark · · Score: 1
      Against guerillas, a fortress is good protection
      I think you're taking the analogy too far. Hacking a security mechanism is not limited by scale of attacking forces in the same way that storming a fortress is. Certainly, if the system is secure and relies on good encryption, then huge resources are needed to defeat it. But that is often not the case with software "security features".
    3. Re:Asymmetrical motivation by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      And yes, as the other poster points out, fortresses are also vulnerable to other kinds of attack than brute force.

    4. Re:Asymmetrical motivation by replicant108 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      The population is becoming VERY disenchanted with the IRA.

      Since the IRA ceasefire, Sinn Fein (who represent the political ideals of the IRA) have become the majority 'Catholic' party by a very clear margin. Support for Republican ideals is therefore arguably stronger than ever. The implication of your statement, that things changed (which they clearly have) simply because Catholics became disenchanted with the IRA is very misleading.

      I'm sorry if this seems off-topic, but in fact it has an important bearing on your analogy.

    5. Re:Asymmetrical motivation by pintomp3 · · Score: 1

      so.... guerillas are fighting an 800 lbs gorilla?

    6. Re:Asymmetrical motivation by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      Against guerillas, a fortress is good protection.

      Since when?

      It doesn't matter what sort of a "fortress" you create, if the people inside it want to cause some trouble (eg the french resistance blowing up telegraph polls), it's hard to do something about it.

    7. Re:Asymmetrical motivation by RupW · · Score: 1

      As for the argument "You have to be lucky always, we only have to be lucky once" - that is often heard but is shows a total lack of simple maths. It is mathematically unsound if you do not take the probabilities into account. "Once lucky at 0.00000000001% chance" is a lot LESS likely than "1000 times lucky at 99% chance".

      But they're not *independent* probabilities. In fact, it's reasonable to assume in that model that the IRA's probability and Thatcher's/Britain's probability sum to 1.

    8. Re:Asymmetrical motivation by radtea · · Score: 1

      And yes, as the other poster points out, fortresses are also vulnerable to other kinds of attack than brute force

      "The approach will not be easy. You are required to maneuver straight down this trench and skim the surface to this point. The target area is only two meters wide. It's a small thermal exhaust port, right below the main port. The shaft leads directly to the reactor system. A precise hit will start a chain reaction which should destroy the station."

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    9. Re:Asymmetrical motivation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sinn Fein don't represent the political ideals of the IRA, they *are* the political wing of the IRA. Hence like GNU/Linux it is Sinn Fein/IRA.

      It is a continual source of amazement to me that people continue to vote for Sinn Fein in preference to the SDLP (Super Duper Lolly Pops :-) ) and that Sinn Fein are allowed to have a veto on political progress simply by virtue of their links to the IRA.

      (Oh and I'm not a DUP voter before you ask.)

    10. Re:Asymmetrical motivation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft could regain its good name

      Are you fucking high? Yeah, and next the Bolsiveks will regain the good name of Joesph Stalin.

  36. Full-disclosure link by Karamchand · · Score: 4, Interesting
  37. Windows Genuine Advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The entire purpose of Windows Genuine Advantage of Microsoft is to allow people to know they have actually recieved a Genuine product and not some product that has a key generated for it. If a person gets the product and installs it and then it fails the Windows Genuine Advantage they know they have paid for a pirated version and can then report that to the authorities. Your average home user is not going to install the OS and then run the crack, they want to know that they have a Genuine version (i.e. a genuine licence) that they have paid for. I know if I purchased another OS for the full price i.e. Mac OSX, I would be pissed if it was just a pirated version.

    1. Re:Windows Genuine Advantage by kebes · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You're right.. and isn't that the problem? It seems like this vulnerability could be coded into a distribution. Someone illegally distributing Windows CDs can modify the copy so that it (unknown to the user) runs the crack, gets seemingly-legit codes, and uses these to "prove" that it is a genuine copy to the silly purchaser of the illegal product. So basically this undermines the whole point of the Windows Genuine Advantage. The user buys a CD of Windows, and even the windows website agrees that it is a genuine copy... but in fact the user was duped and bought a pirated copy. This lets the "bad guys" make money off of consumers... moreover it means that the "Windows Genuine" seal means nothing... worse, it provides people with a false sense of authentication.

      (or maybe there's something I don't understand about the whole process?)

    2. Re:Windows Genuine Advantage by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      I installed.. My FRIEND installed XP Pro Corp on his computer and used a keygen'd code. It passed the Genuine Advantage test thing. I laughed hard and long at it.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    3. Re:Windows Genuine Advantage by HydroCarbon10 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure you're average home user doesn't give a fuck about where their software comes from, they just want it to work properly, and not get owned within a half hour of connecting to the internet.

      Windows Genuine Advantage is just a pain in the ass for legit customers, an annoyance for large-scale pirates, and a non-issue for customers of large-scale pirates. So, who is getting the better end of this deal? The day that Microsoft attempted to force me to download their god damned WGA app was the day I bought my PowerBook.

      --
      The best way to accelerate a windows box is at 9.8 meters per second square.
    4. Re:Windows Genuine Advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Start with XP Pro corp ..devils own version...oh brings back memories ...plus the chinese guy's keygen = sp2 installed and passed the "Genuine Advantage" so go fiqure?

    5. Re:Windows Genuine Advantage by pavera · · Score: 1

      Wow did you take MS's spin hook line and sinker. MS wants you to believe that's what all this genuine advantage crap is. Do you also believe it when MS tells you that windows 2000 is the most secure OS ever? That XP SP2 would solve all security problems?

      I'm glad MS isn't just wasting all their marketing dollars apparently someone is listening. In reality all WGA is is a thinly vailed attempt by MS to extract more money from already paying customers. Do you think Dell, HP, Gateway, Toshiba, and Lenovo/IBM are distributing pirated copies of WinXP? What about Compusa, best buy and fry's? That is where probably 99% of MS's customers get their OS, and none of them are distributing pirated copies of windows. Sure your whitebox dealer on the corner might be, but most people don't buy their PCs there, and if they do, guess what, in good faith they thought they were getting a valid product, if it turns out they didn't, what do they have to do? Buy a whole new OS. It's not a deal for the consumer, its a deal for MS, and its a headache for anyone who changes hardware/software often.

      I have one license for WinXP Pro, I move it regularly between 3 computers, and every time its another hour long session on hold and then getting them to reset the key so I can install it. It's totally legal, and the MS reps have always been helpful (If a bit slow getting to the phone), but its an hour (and $150) I lose every time I need to reinstall my OS. Sure I could buy 3 copies of the OS, but even then I change hardware so often that after the first month I'd have to be calling again on all 3 copies this time.

    6. Re:Windows Genuine Advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure your whitebox dealer on the corner might be, but most people don't buy their PCs there,

      Most? No. But you'll find a substantial number of people in any town who would rather buy local. Even in my shitty town, we have more whitebox dealers than I can count. Someone is keeping them all in business.

      and if they do, guess what, in good faith they thought they were getting a valid product, if it turns out they didn't, what do they have to do? Buy a whole new OS.

      bzzzzz! Thanks for playing. Here's some lovely parting gifts. The correct answer is: They get a free legit copy of Windows in return for telling Microsoft who ripped them off.

      Microsoft isn't dumb, people. As fun as it is to think that they are, you never get anywhere by underestimating the opposition. MS did exactly that for years with Linux, and look where it's gotten them.

    7. Re:Windows Genuine Advantage by SysGoddess · · Score: 1
      The entire purpose of Windows Genuine Advantage of Microsoft is to allow people to know they have actually recieved a Genuine product and not some product that has a key generated for it.

      Right. And that would be why one of the Product Activation keys that we received directly from Mickey$oft in our official Mickey$oft Action Pack (MAPS) was flagged as being either a pirated number or a volume licensing key that was supposedly known to be pirated or in the wild. I don't recall the exact verbiage any longer, only that previous checks on my computer had been without problem.

      At the last MS TS2 event I attended I asked one of the speakers about it during one of the sessions and was told to ask him about it again after the session ended and he was downright hostile and had no explanation as to why this had occured. He not only couldn't (wouldn't?) provide any answers but he couldn't seem to get away from me fast enough and, in retrospect, that's probably why he didn't want to address the subject in the open session despite the fact that it was the topic at hand.

      I used a keygen recently on my computer and re-ran the Genuine Advantage check and came up clean. I'm half tempted to let our $199 a year MAPs membership expire and just use a keygen instead of doing things the 'genuine' way since that seems to get us nothing more than a pain in the ass and more bullshit from Mickey$oft than my garden can use in a season.

      --

      Thus spake the SysGoddess
    8. Re:Windows Genuine Advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The day that Microsoft attempted to force me to download their god damned WGA app was the day I bought my PowerBook

      Since Microsoft has yet to force anyone to download it yet, did you travel into the future for an excuse to buy a PowerBook?

    9. Re:Windows Genuine Advantage by 50m31sl4sh. · · Score: 0
      Someone illegally distributing Windows CDs can modify the copy so that it (unknown to the user) runs the crack, gets seemingly-legit codes, and uses these to "prove" that it is a genuine copy to the silly purchaser of the illegal product.
      You're overcomplicating (is it a word?). Pirates usually use "corp" XP without any cracks, and WGA happily takes serials (license keys) generated by the latest keygen. So WGA, like WPA (Windows Product Activation), is more a hassle for legit users, while pirates easily bypass it.
      --
      Rediculous is ridiculous!
  38. It didn't work anyways by dtfinch · · Score: 1

    It rejected the XP Home OEM key that came with my eMachine, purchased from CostCo.

  39. No, no they don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wrote a essay like that in my 'History of War' class with just quotes like that. You need to explain why you choose these quotes.

  40. OLD NEWS - already fixed by Microsoft in May by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Microsoft has already fixed it by removing the link to GenuineCheck.exe from there website. A hack would be decompiling GenuineCheck.exe and turning it into a keygen.

    And this was back on May 24th, Slash-losers.

    Keep looking for ways to bring the great Bill Gates down ... you still haven't done it, and never will.

    Haha.

  41. Re:Text(OT) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That would be my guess. It's not like the original site is even slow or anything.

  42. Serendipster by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Advantage: India

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  43. Hacked from the inside? by headchimp · · Score: 1

    Hmm, being that an Indian found this, me thinks it was cracked by an Indian working there for Microsoft. After all with outsourcing and such.

    1. Re:Hacked from the inside? by shm · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Fuck off, racist asshole.

    2. Re:Hacked from the inside? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey, moron, did you lose your job to outsourcing? Sounds like you deserved to.

    3. Re:Hacked from the inside? by michaelhood · · Score: 1

      There's ~1.08B people there.. you think that every single person there is working for a company that outsourced? Get real. Ignorant comments like this give the rest of the American Slashdotters a bad name.

    4. Re:Hacked from the inside? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because *all* of the approx. 1 billion Indians work for Microsoft.

      Feckin' eedjit.

    5. Re:Hacked from the inside? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A huge chunk of their computer professionals are "outsourcing" jobs, and most of the others are thinly concealed outsourcing. I suggest you take a look at the Delhi job ads: the Indians are reasonably well educated and pretty cheap as programmers go.

    6. Re:Hacked from the inside? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's only stating a fact. With a dash of sarcastic humour. If you can't take it...then stfu u piece of crackwhore.

  44. this crack will become obsolete again too... by kesuki · · Score: 2, Informative

    it's a cat and mouse game, and frankly the hackers crack the encryption for the challenge of doing it, because frankly not everyone should have to pay the highway robbery price of windows... even bill gates can be quoted as saying 'software should be free' from back in the day when geeks traded puch tapes of code in the back of vans and copied them ;)

    copy protection is worthless, imo, windows would be better off just trying to convince people that piracy is bad, like the mpaa is trying to do with the ads at the front of dvds that can't be skipped... they'd be better off having an advertisment on the windows load screen and/or as the default screen saver than to put tons and tons of protection that will eventually be cracked for the challenge of it ;)

    Piracy is bad, but most of the people who resort to it, are desperate, a few are criminal, but most people aren't that bad. the worst are the crack addicts selling dvds/software on street corners to buy thier next hit... and frankly you don't have to be a crack addict to try that, if you need to have that 10 grand configuration of the dual g-5 2.7gh with 30" apple cinema display, and dual 400 GB hds, and 4 GB of ram... and don't have a job what better way than to sell pirated dvds/software on the street to score the cash without feeling really bad about yourself...

    Note: the rest of this post is rambling, and may be inchoerant, feel free to skip it, i only included it for the people who like reading my comments..

    Windows has a high price point, because they make a lot more money that way, eventually this will change, because really, you're paying for the 'value added' with commercially packaged software.. So really all microsoft is trying to do is protect the value they added to the basic functions of an os, but reguardless, all they need to do is make it hard enough, they don't need to stop everyone... they just need to be able to contain the flow of illegal copies because unlike apple, they're not a hardware company, all they do is write a complex piece of stoftware that is intended to run on virtually every POS baddly designed motherboard and chipset out there... apple, doesn't do that, they just write one for thier own hardware, which makes it a lot easier. but really, pirated copies of windows that are 'reasonably' difficult to get are no worse for windows than linux. If windows becomes too hard for some system builders to pirate, they will just install linux, and explain 'it's less prone to viruses than windows' they will be forced to switch to linux, and linux certified hardware, the better windows copy protection gets, the better it is for linux, frankly. not everyone needs a true gaming rig, and frankly a lot fo the people who have one probabbly are sleeping on a mattress someone threw away in the trash ;) linux has enough interesting games for the casual user, and firefox can be set up so web sites with games can be played too, which is what most casual users think of when they think of online gaming, they think og site like pogo or yahoo! games ;)

    okay i'm rambling sorry, but making the cracks too easy to get just helps windows market share... cracking the encryption to be the guy/gal who did it is fine, but if you want to help the case for linux you simply shouldn't make them easy to get ;) so really you're helping microsoft stay number 1 in install base, while eroding thier bottom line, by pirating windows. frankly right now their bottom line isn't hurting that bad... they're worried about it though, because they know the only thing that microsoft does is add value to the basic principals of writing an OS. if anyone can do this better than them (apple comes to mind, at least for retail prepackaged machines) but they can't touch the white box field, because it cost too much money and headaches to polish a piece of software as complex as windows that will run on almost any configuration of standard PC hardware. linux can only make so many inroads because frankly it's being written by geeks in thier spare time, and a few who work for companies and are told to 'maintain' linux for cred etc...

    1. Re:this crack will become obsolete again too... by PhYrE2k2 · · Score: 1
      linux has enough interesting games for the casual user, and firefox can be set up so web sites with games can be played too, which is what most casual users think of when they think of online gaming, they think og site like pogo or yahoo! games ;)


      Let me first say that I don't play many games. I'll maybe play one-to-two a year- in the past 18 months need-for-speed:U2 and midnight-club:II. I'm a geek, but I'd say with the exception of SSH software, your typical knowledgeable user who does a some Web development and other tasks typical of most users on Slashdot.

      Firefox and Thunderbird do all I need, but there are still a lot of things lacking. Personally, I use Trillian- and Miranda is far from ready. When it is, you'll get users of all IMs onto Linux a lot more. OpenSSH comes nowhere near SecureCRT for SSH/Telnet/etc. The entire Adobe suite is very Windows based. The entire macromedia suite is very windows based. Anything A/V is terror on Linux. Office on its clean and simple interface could squash OO any day- especially when sharing files with other people.

      This is indeed off-topic- I'll admit that. But seriously- Linux is not the answer to anything. It has a LONG way to go on the desktop front before it's accepted by your average geek let alone average home user (so add MSN's smiley collections, IE, games, and clippy).

      Linux has been ready on the server market for a long time, and you'll notice a ton of adoption into servers with the help of Samba, Novell's offerings, etc. Despite this, it's desktop usage is still nowhere near what it needs to be to get people over. A large part of this is application support, but rebooting to get Linux running isn't going to happen as much as you claim it will given more copyprotection... all it will do is add more legit windows users.

      -M
      --

      when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
    2. Re:this crack will become obsolete again too... by kesuki · · Score: 1

      i use gaim, gaim is kick ass, it supports everything _I_ need it to do, which is message my friends online. it supports file transfers too, although only yahoo!'s push file transfer support works ^^;

      I wasnt' saying for geeks, let me clarify, this is for geeks, to use for a family member who came to them for a 'deal' of a system that won't give them a ton of headaches. you probabbly have relatives right now who are struggling with low salary incomes, and if you've networked in your own family, they're going to turn to you to help them configure a cheap pc, and they really don't give a damn if the copy of windows is legit, they just care the computer is cheap if it's harder to support them with a pirated windows copy, then it's going to be easier to convince them that 'linux' is good enough for them for a 'family pc'

    3. Re:this crack will become obsolete again too... by DaCool42 · · Score: 1

      Just out of curiosity - what does SecureCRT have that is so great that OpenSSH doesn't have?

      --

      ----
      All of whose base are belong to the what-now?
    4. Re:this crack will become obsolete again too... by Jarlsberg · · Score: 1
      even bill gates can be quoted as saying 'software should be free' from back in the day when geeks traded puch tapes of code in the back of vans and copied them ;)

      Are you sure? I'm quite certain I read that Bill Gates was mad at hell at the people who lifted his Basic code this way.

    5. Re:this crack will become obsolete again too... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Graceful key management without having to staple in tools like "keychains", a nice UI, really good VT100 and other terminal emulation that is vatly superior to that of the CygWin command prompt or the Windows telnet tools, good SSH tunneling management, and someone you can call at 3 AM with your software problem to walk you through debugging the issues. SecureCRT is a very sweet tool, and I recommend it.

      Now, if you compared it to *Putty*, the open source OpenSSH based free tool built for Windows, you'd have a better basis for comparison.

    6. Re:this crack will become obsolete again too... by hacker · · Score: 1
      "This crack will become obsolete again too... it's a cat and mouse game, and frankly the hackers crack the encryption for the challenge of doing it, because frankly not everyone should have to pay the highway robbery price of windows..."

      Its not quite Cat and Mouse. See, the companies that get broken into or "schooled" by felons who break into their systems or breach their security, teach them how to secure things tighter. The kiddies that work around their "security patches" or other controls help these companies to tighten their access control and eventually they get better at security.

      Except the ones doing it get jailed, even when they're ASKED to break into the systems. So Microsoft gets a free community security audit, and in some cases code that helps prove the flaw (i.e. an exploit in the wild). They fix the hole, arrest the offenders, and move on to the next hole.

      See, its Cat and Cat really. Microsoft (and other companies) tighten their security, close holes, and arrest the perpetrators that taught them how to use security properly.

      In the end, either all the holes are closed, or all the people willing to find them are in jail. Problem solved.

    7. Re:this crack will become obsolete again too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      let me find a reference... oh wait looks like i was probably confused ;) but he Can be citing as saying open source software is important... in terms of the importants of projects like FreeBSD etc.. which is probably where i got confused...

      I didn't look very hard, but I'm sure if he's ever said those words in that order it would have to have been taken out of context of a larger speach, and have a different meaning when given with context... like he probabbly at some point said "open source 'software should be free' to continue to develope software without worrying about patents etc.." and people pick up on the fact that he said 'software should be free' and take it out of context and abuse it ;)

    8. Re:this crack will become obsolete again too... by kesuki · · Score: 1

      flawed logic... i'l just give you some statistics on bug patching, for every 100 bugs 'patched' 4 new bugs tend to be produced in code... the same is likely to be true with security holes etc. new code will tend to have new holes as well, as far as arresting all the criminals goes, that worked really great with the war on drugs. the 1970's called, they want thier plan back.

  45. HTML mirror by Rupan · · Score: 1

    For those of us who want to see the article, but don't have the ability to open Word documents,

    http://www.css-auth.com/gen_adv/

    Although this being called a "crack" is laughable.

    --
    Ads? What ads?
    1. Re:HTML mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THats just pathetic. If that is what this whole article is about then someone seriously needs to review what the term "cracking" is because thats just like someone saying they hacked a computer because they ran nmap on an IP address.

  46. NO *real* hacker would trust ms.. by Halvy · · Score: 1

    Period.

    Think about it, who would risk being *known* if you were a hacker (good or bad)?

    As far as those that would do it for *fame*, well, I think that would fall more in the model of *script-kiddies* would run and boast at their middle-schools, not the army that is attempting to bring the dragon down.

    Remember, ms is *good* at being bad..

    So if they did devise a scheme to *act cool* and invite everyone to try owning their systems, it would only be to try and get info on who the dangerous hackers are out there, and what they are capable of. :)

    --
    I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
  47. Re:Would hackers support MS? Incentives. by debrain · · Score: 1

    When it's being advertised as a hack-challenge, the incentive to disclose is greater, since there is a greater assumption that someone else is going to figure it out:

    If you disclose first, you receive praise and recognition. If you discover a hack but only disclose after someone else, you are deprived of this praise and recognition.

    If someone honestly believes no-one will figure out their clever hack before the product is released, there might be some incentive to holding onto it, for later malicious exploitation.

    The value of each hack is decreased for advertised challenges since there is an avenue of disclosure with reward, so the likelihood of a hack remaining exclusive to people who don't disclose is decreased.

    Just food for thought.

  48. Easy fix. by PopeAlien · · Score: 4, Funny

    This should be easy for Microsoft to fix. Like all problems the solution lies with legislation.

    Outlaw India - problem solved.

    1. Re:Easy fix. by Ryosen · · Score: 4, Funny

      Outlaw India and they'll just come up with another replacement. Rumor has it that projects are already in the works with names like "Malaysia", "Philippines", and "China".

      --

      Ryosen
      One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
    2. Re:Easy fix. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Outlaw India - problem solved.

      That'll never work, silly. Outlaw India and only outlaws will have Indians.

    3. Re:Easy fix. by Foolomon · · Score: 1

      Microsoft's answer, though, will be to buy India outright. That'll solve the problem of call center employees selling your personal data too.

  49. Uh... so... I can't be the only one wondering this by mcc · · Score: 1

    I don't use windows. What's a "Microsoft Genuine Advantage"?

    The article says it's an "anti-piracy program". That isn't very specific.

  50. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  51. Siege warfare by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man."

    One word... Leningrad... Patton was a great general and one of the few Allied commanders the Germans geuinely respected but he was also an arrogant bastard (and he probably would have enjoyed being called that). Although he unfairly dismissed the value of fortifications he did have a point. The Romans for example preferred to besiege an enemy that was prepared to give battle. The reasoning being that it was cheaper in lives and money to starve him out. In this case one might actually argue that it is Micro$oft who is trying to starve out the pirate consumers by denying them access to updates rather than that Micro$oft is throwing up fortifications to hide behind. So let's not underestimate Micro$oft. Clamping down on OS piracy will certainly play into the hands of Linux and especially OS.X to some degree but alot of people will still cough up the money for one of those so-called "Student and Teacher" versions of XP.

    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
    1. Re:Siege warfare by True+Grit · · Score: 1
      One word... Leningrad...

      Uhmm, not really.

      Leningrad was never truly brought under siege, because it was never completely surrounded. The Wiki article mentions the "Road of Life" which was actually a *railroad*. They literally laid down tracks on Lake Ladoga to the east when it had sufficiently frozen at the start of winter, so during the winter months, especially after the first year, Leningrad was able to get in supplies and reinforcements.

      Some of the bitterest fighting for Leningrad actually took place well to the *east* with the Germans desperately trying to push far enough along the lakeshore to stop the resupply, but the terrain there was a defender's dream come true.

      Then you have the fact that the Finns didn't actually assist Germany in the siege to the north, in fact it is likely that the Finns (who understood winter warfare as well as the Soviets) could have cut the resupply over Lake Ladoga if they wished to. Put those two things together, and you have a recipe for a failed "siege". Had Germany been able to cut off the Lake Ladoga lifeline, and/or had the Finns actively assisted from the north, Leningrad would have fallen probably by the second year, '42.
  52. Isn't XP already cracked? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    There is a keygen program and a keychange program for XP that allows it to pass Microsoft's Validation Assistant


    Does this crack offer more?

  53. Gee thanks Sanjeev by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "According to Microsoft this service would soon require all Windows users to verify their license before downloading updates."

  54. MS just warming up more bloat for Longhorn by pallmall1 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Windows XP will be going the end-of-life way of Windows 2000 in the near future. Micros**t is just beta testing another fork-the-user method they're going to stick in Wronghorn before they stick it in users ... again.

    --
    3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
    1. Re:MS just warming up more bloat for Longhorn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wronghorn! Teehee!

      How long did it take you to come up with that fine bit of wit?

      You funking Linux lovin' losers, haven't got a clue. Even the BSD dude called your software crap. HAHAHAHAH!

    2. Re:MS just warming up more bloat for Longhorn by pallmall1 · · Score: 1

      Read the earliest reply to this post and tell me who's the troll.

      --
      3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
  55. What's the YEAR!? The YEAR!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An Indian researcher

    Doesn't tell me if he's 14 or 45. It makes a difference in the l33tness of it. It's far more disparaging if some fucking Danish 14 year old cracks your shit, rather than a 60 year old electrical engineer who has patents on the original semiconductor.

    Just like in Terminator 1, but with a phone instead of a ghun.

    The YEAR?!!?1

  56. Interesting that by einhverfr · · Score: 1

    these quotes can be interpreted in this context to be very different to what they meant by their authors.

    Though certainly the Patton quote seems analogous to the oft-said "Security is a process, not a product" in both intent and substance.

    My reaction to the second one however was that it was perhaps the more interesting one. Microsoft is seeking to defend themselves from their users-based and the general tendency for "casual copying" from friend to friend. So not only are they trying to entrench themselves behind strong fortifications but they are defining their users to be the enemy. Hence they are compelling their users to seek solution elsewhere (i.e. Mac, Linux, BSD).

    The only problem with this quote is that although it shows that Microsoft is pursuing a strategy that will doom the company as the market leader, we also know how generally inept Microsoft is when it comes to security software. So Microsoft is not doomed yet-- serious piracy will continue to act as an obstacle to wide-spread adoption of Linux in the developing world because Microsoft can't even execute bad business strategy well.

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  57. Re:this isn't a crack by sharkb8 · · Score: 1

    You don't generate a validation code.

    You put in your serial # when you install, then when you run windows for the first time, it connects to a Microsoft server and sends you computer configuration to MS. MS saves the config, and tells your local copy of Windows to stop asking for registration. And every time you try to get a patch, WIndows phones home to see if you're stilll running that copy of windows on the same setup. If not, you have to call tech support.

    I replaced my mobo, and later, when windows had to be reinstalled, I had to get a validation code from TS. I reinstalled again the next day, and didn't need it.

  58. Best thing that ever happened to Linux and OS X by LemonFire · · Score: 1

    The "Windows Genuine Advantage of Microsoft" program is the best thing that ever happened to Linux and OS X. I know that there are a lot of users out there that are using windows without ever paying for all the licenses they need.

    At one now defunct company that I know about they had 20 real licenses for about 150 work stations and servers. In my experience this isn't a very uncommon at all.

    Once the real "cost" of running Windows is forced out into the open I'm sure we'll see increased usage of Linux and OS X.

    All good things! I don't hate Windows but I would like to see more Linux and OS X computers out there.

    This SIG is properly taxed and licensed.

    1. Re:Best thing that ever happened to Linux and OS X by Inthewire · · Score: 0

      Linux, maybe, but not OS X.
      You still need Apple hardware to run OS X, and it costs money.

      --


      Writers imply. Readers infer.
    2. Re:Best thing that ever happened to Linux and OS X by shmlco · · Score: 1
      they had 20 real licenses for about 150 work stations and servers

      Sort of belies the "most downloads wouldn't have resulted in sales anyway" theory, doesn't it?

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    3. Re:Best thing that ever happened to Linux and OS X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people will respond to this as an increase in the price of Windows and say "Oh, well... now that I have to pay for Windows and Office, the Mac doesn't look all that much more expensive than the PC."

      Linux is still generally unthinkable.

    4. Re:Best thing that ever happened to Linux and OS X by stoborrobots · · Score: 1

      Actually, to me it says that there are plenty of lost sales which are completely independant of illegal downloads - If you have 20 real licences, you already have the installation media.

      What this tells me is what we already knew - people can pirate stuff without resorting to downloads... We've seen this happen for many, many years before the infamous September, with swapped disks, etc.

      So, while "most downloads" may or may not have resulted in sales, there are plenty of lost sales out there...

  59. Exploit?! by holiggan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Do you call this an "exploit"? It seems more like a loopwhole to me, something like using a valid cd-key from a genuine wraped up box to install a pirated copy of the same software. I mean, come on! They let you download something that checks for the validity of the installed windows and returns a code, how long would it take for someone to try a valid code on a pirated windows? For what I read, it's goes something like this: there is this building with several diferent apartments: A, B, C, etc... and there is a key in each. But for you to get in, you need to check your key to see if it's valid: "they gave me this key to aparment B, is it valid?" And the system validates your key, then you can get into ANY aparment, because ultimatly the system doesn't check if the key you are using has any conection to the apartment that you are trying to acess: "yes, the key you present is valid, please fell free to try it in any apartment, we don't check to see if its ACTUALLY the key to aparment B, we just check to see if it's a couterfeit" But, hey, maybe this is an exploit afterall, the "hole" is there, but it's in the process, not in the coding or programing itself.

    --
    "A sysadmin is a cross between a detective, a police officer, a gardener, a doctor and a fireman"
  60. WGA crack by dokhebi · · Score: 1

    I was going to cackle at the continued lack of Microsoft security, then I remembered that Red Hat has something similar for updating RHEL.

    Anyone want to bet that this (RHEL update) is still unbroken? No takers?

    I thought so.

    Just my $0.02 worth.

    1. Re:WGA crack by systemic+chaos · · Score: 1

      simple: less of us nerds hate linux. That has to be at least part of the problem. I see it as a Mountain Dew or Crab Juice kinda decision for those blessed with the ability to talk to computers.

  61. Why I hate XP Key Codes by ebooher · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Personally, I don't have a windows computer in my home. I am running several Macs, a Sparc and a Linux machine. The main reason all stems from Microsoft and the way they treat their paying customers like they are stealing something from them.

    A friend of mine bought a Gateway computer a couple of years ago with XP Home on it. After installing and uninstalling several pieces of software the system locked and he couldn't get it to "boot." So being the tech savvy friend in the industry he brings the PC to me.

    The system is asking for a Microsoft Authentication Code. Ok, whatever. Plug into the switch, get online, enter the Key Code, refuses my request for an Auth Code. *grumble* Call the number provided, get a wonderful automated system that doesn't let me speak to a human. Also refuses to give me an Auth Code. *more grumbling* Call Microsoft Support direct (the first number was given to me by XP when the code gen failed) speak to a human who verifies I have a valid Windows Key Code and then refuses to give me an Auth Code.

    Meh?

    She proceeds to inform me that as the code is an OEM code from Gateway that I have to call them. *sighs* Ok, I've been dealing with this a couple hours now, with hold times and all, but what the hey. Call Gateway, the representative though friendly, tells me very politely to go screw myself. Seems the system is now out of warranty period, plus since I'm not the actual owner of the system anyway they can not give me any assistance what so ever. Offers the helpful advice to give Microsoft a call.

    At this point I pull out an education bulk copy of XP Pro I happened to have purchased, and isn't running on anything else and install Pro in place of Home. Good thing about the bulk site keys, there are thousands of users with the same key legally and honestly. Kill the key and lots of very unhappy people.

    My Mac? Drop the CD/DVD in, hold down C, click install, and I'm done. Ahh .... simple. Linux? Same thing, boot the disc, walk through the install dialog, and we're happy. Debian based? apt-get upgrade the entire thing without even a CD. Heck, even Solaris installs and assumes it's legit and doesn't mind. (This was before the whole it's free for you and open now too thing)

    Yeah, Microsoft is only going to end up really annoying the hell out of it's legit users. Crackers and 1337 W@r3z P1r@t35 will never be more than mildly inconvenienced. If they are taking the time now to write programs that will let them keygen against binaries on the CD, then they are already spending the time trying to rip the thing off. The problem with a cat burglar is, no matter how many locks on the safe, if the Hope Diamond is inside, they are going to take the time they need to open it.

    --
    "Genius may shine aloof and alone, like a star, but goodness is social, and it takes two men and God to make a Brother."
    1. Re:Why I hate XP Key Codes by KillerBob · · Score: 1

      The problem with a cat burglar is, no matter how many locks on the safe, if the Hope Diamond is inside, they are going to take the time they need to open it

      Yeah, but it's Windows. As far as gemstones go, that's the Iron Pyrite of operating systems. Sure, it's a great gaming platform, and I run a copy of XP Pro on one of my systems, but mix it with the Internet, and you've got an accident waiting to happen.

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    2. Re:Why I hate XP Key Codes by HairyCanary · · Score: 1
      Personally, I don't have a windows computer in my home. I am running several Macs, a Sparc and a Linux machine. The main reason all stems from Microsoft and the way they treat their paying customers like they are stealing something from them.

      Here, here! You sound much like me -- I have an Ultra 10, three Linux PC's, and a Mac Mini. The only Windows I get forced into using is at work -- and I'm shortly going to solve that issue as well. Every time one of my friends or family has yet another problem with Windows, I am reminded about why I don't use it.

    3. Re:Why I hate XP Key Codes by moonbender · · Score: 1

      My Mac? Drop the CD/DVD in, hold down C, click install, and I'm done.

      Isn't registration with Apple mandatory, too? I think that's the impression I got when I installed last time, anyway. It's been a while though.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    4. Re:Why I hate XP Key Codes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, I own 2 copies of XP and none of my computers use them. Instead running on corp versions from work because I don't have to go through all this bullshit to use my own software.

      One time I reinstalled the activation servers were down so they couldn't activate over the phone. Did I wait 3 days or did I go download an activation crack....

    5. Re:Why I hate XP Key Codes by spectecjr · · Score: 1

      My Mac? Drop the CD/DVD in, hold down C, click install, and I'm done. Ahh .... simple. Linux? Same thing, boot the disc, walk through the install dialog, and we're happy. Debian based? apt-get upgrade the entire thing without even a CD. Heck, even Solaris installs and assumes it's legit and doesn't mind. (This was before the whole it's free for you and open now too thing)

      Mac OS X - they're selling you the hardware. Selling you another OS is just skimming money off the top where they can - they already got most of your cash for the machine.

      Linux? It's a free as in beer OS. Why would you need a key or registration?

      Windows? They don't sell you hardware. They only sell you software. That's where their money comes from - they're going to protect it.

      Unless Microsoft start selling PCs themselves, and write an OS that only runs on their systems, don't expect it to change any time soon.

      --
      Coming soon - pyrogyra
  62. Good... by NEOtaku17 · · Score: 1

    That's sounds good considering most of the smart XP pirates are running a genuine Corp Edition key code. So how exactly will this stop us even without this new exploit?

  63. Got hit by that "feature" today, VERY annoying. by tcc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wanted to install DirectX 9.0C on my laptop, and got hit by that. They've asked me to type in my product Key (which was UNDER my dhell laptop, attached to it was my external 80gb firewire drive and my 200GB USB2 drive, thank god it's not using a docking station, this would have required me to turn it off and then write it down then reboot than download, then reboot again...

    for god's sake what are they thinking? don't they get it? lot of people are buying software and use cracked version EXACTLY because of the fact that all legitimate software puts totally INSANE overhead that only irritates clients and in the end penalize them. And beleive me, they lose sales little by little because in the end it's less of a pain in the back to install cracked versions than upgrade with the re-registration, phone confirmation, yadi yada that without mentionning activations problems and all that stuff that people don't want to deal with especially after shelling out hundreds of dollars.

    You want people to stop pirating, EDUCATE them, irritating them will only do the exact opposite. When I was a kid, I had a VIC20 and a C64, EVERYTHING was copied because "stores selling games" what not a commodity like today, plus, at 11, you don't have that much money, and face it, piracy is what made the C64 such a hot seller. But later, I was educated once entering a specific field of interest (3d/video editing) by people on mailing lists and also local pros, and today I'm the one pushing people to buy software and support companies, especially when these companies puts out educational pricing or non-commercial licenses at very decent pricing. Its still easy to get pirated software, but when you are educated, you know what happens in the long run, or you know the potential legal implications it might get you into if positive reinforcement is not your thing :).

    Seriously, I just don't get it... if the goal is a clever way to reduce bandwidth costs on their server and outsource the stuff to pirate sites or torrents sites, well, hats off! but I doubt this would be the case.... man how pathetic can it get...

    --
    --- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
  64. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  65. Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The very same issue was raised in this article over a month ago.

  66. Diamond industry comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A pirated OS operates exactly the same as the real thing. Your argument sounds like the diamond industry FUD. CZ are indestinguishable from the real thing except for a few 0's. Microsoft is like your wife asking every year if its still real. A complete PITA.

  67. Shatter attack by tepples · · Score: 2, Informative

    Therefore, if you've happened to stumble upon it, I'll take your word for that.

    It doesn't take source code to discover the shatter attack. Any program that has a window open is allowed to remote-control any other program that has a window open on the same machine. In fact, a program running under a limited user can remote-control a program running under administrator (e.g. an antivirus) and escalate privileges that way.

  68. Define starvation by foofoodog · · Score: 1

    The government takes 30% of my pay, the state gets 6% off the top on most things I buy like cars and appliances. You think I mind paying 10% (~$4/month) of a $1000 computer every two years for a vendor supported OS? Somebody whittle down the 30% and then we will have something to talk about talk.

    --
    Can I bum a sig?
    1. Re:Define starvation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, pay for your own national defense, fire protection, police protection, food and drug testing, children's education, roads, etc and see how much you "whittle down" that 30%.

  69. Real genuine by Gyga · · Score: 0

    How genuine, works perfectly. /sarcasm
    --
    I'm a troll hear me rawr.

    --
    I don't preview or spellcheck.
  70. Seems like a bad business model by David+Marra · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How many countless people around the globe learned Windows on an illegal copy? You'd think MS would want to distribute Windows to anybody who wanted to use it, learn it, develop on it, etc- I'd be looking at it as a way to increase Windows support- and only be charging corporate users, or those that are making a profit off of Windows capabilities. By limiting its availability to paying customers they are cutting off a huge user base- which will only enhance their competitors position in the market.

  71. Here's the orginal post on full disclosure by bluelark · · Score: 1

    OK Mr Doubting Thomas ... the hack was disclosed on Full Disclosure on May 23rd.

    There is lot of hype about WGA (Windows Genuine Advantage) when Microsoft builds functionality in its few of the public beta products to conduct a genuine product check before the product gets installed. MS products or tools with WGA check enabled can only be installed on a valid / genuine copy of MS Windows XP. Incase it is a pirated copy then the product denies to install.

    If you are aware of Microsoft WGA validation then you can directly jump in to the PoC section otherwise it is advisable to read on WGA and what it does before reading the PoC.

    To know more about WGA, refer to the following Microsoft link: http://www.microsoft.com/genuine/downloads/FAQ.asp x?displaylang=en

    Defeating Microsoft WGA Validation Check - Proof of Concept (PoC) This PoC explains how Microsoft WGA validation check can be defeated and any Microsoft product with the WGA validation feature can be run and installed on machines running pirated copy of Windows XP. To bypass WGA validation check, one can run "GenuineCheck.exe" file on a machine running a copy of an authentic Windows XP for generating a key code. This key code generated on the machine running genuine copy of Win XP can be used to circumvent the WGA check on the machine running a pirated copy of Win XP.

    A detailed approach can be downloaded from the following link - http://www.hackingspirits.com/vuln-rnd/defeating-w ga-check.zip

    Microsoft in its reply to my mail specified that "The generated code is partly made up of a timestamp, which would prevent use after a short period". However, I checked this on a pirated copy of Windows XP Pro and installed couple of public beta products and tools for testing purpose. They are still up and running since past 1.5 months.

    Incase, anyone is going to try this out on their pirated versions of Win XP then do let me know if the installed product make noise after certain time period.

    ð Debasis Mohanty ð www.hackingspirits.com

  72. "Impenetrable?" Sounds familiar. by cocoamix · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Microsoft confirmed the claims of Mohanty, but sought to downplay it saying, "It represents very little threat."

    Brings to mind an image of the captain of the "unsinkable" Titanic warning his passengers that the ship has bumped into a very little ice cube.

  73. He found there isn't one! by SeaFox · · Score: 1

    An Indian researcher has cracked the much-touted "impenetrable" Windows Genuine Advantage of Microsoft.

    How can he crack an advantage that doesn't actually exist? :-D

    Come now... you knew that name would be used as a joked at some point...

  74. Re:Got hit by that "feature" today, VERY annoying. by SysKoll · · Score: 2, Funny
    You want people to stop pirating, EDUCATE them, irritating them will only do the exact opposite.

    I agree, the problem of MS being pirated would be solved through educating customers. But it would be a solution that might leave MS very unhappy.

    Because the sad truth is that educated customers buy Macs or install Linux...

    --

    --
    Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/

  75. Sapping by plopez · · Score: 1

    so you just sap underneath it, collapse the ground and the wall comes tumbling down. this is an age old technnique to attack fortress walls.

    There is always a way....

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  76. Debian Genuine Advantage still uncracked :) by Xtifr · · Score: 4, Funny
    I think a lot of people are missing the point of this. The original purpose, as I understand it, of the "Genuine Advantage" program was to allow users to verify that they had not been ripped off when buying a Winbox, i.e. that they'd actually received a validly licensed copy of Win. Why you would care was never adequately explained, but that's a side issue. But if you do care, then this would seem to be somewhat of an unfortunate development.

    Anyway, I would like to present my own "Debian Genuine Advantage" program that people can use to verify that their Debian-based systems are not pirated:
    #!/bin/sh
    echo "This system is not \"pirated\"."
    Adapting this system for using on other flavors of Linux is left as an exercise for the student. :)
    1. Re:Debian Genuine Advantage still uncracked :) by donkeyoverlord · · Score: 1
      #!/bin/sh
      echo "This system is not a valid copy of \"Microsoft Windows\"."
      CRAP!!!
    2. Re:Debian Genuine Advantage still uncracked :) by IchBinEinPenguin · · Score: 1

      Cross-platform patch, should work on BSD, OS-X, Sparc, etc. etc. #!/bin/sh echo This `uname -o` system is not \"pirated\".

    3. Re:Debian Genuine Advantage still uncracked :) by unleashedgamers · · Score: 1

      Horay!
      This GNU/Linux system is not "pirated".

      Wow i hopped it was a good copy after all the money i spent on it!

    4. Re:Debian Genuine Advantage still uncracked :) by m50d · · Score: 1

      How do you it wasn't distributed without source?

      --
      I am trolling
    5. Re:Debian Genuine Advantage still uncracked :) by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

      allow users to verify that they had not been ripped off when buying a Winbox

      Which would be a technological acheivement right up there with allowing people to commit suicide safely.

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
  77. Microsoft genuine disadvantage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So at some point, Microsoft is going to want (a lot) of money for updates to it's software, as it's business model is 1. provide the shareholders as large a return on investment as possible. 2. Create some kind of product where the cost of production is as low as possible and where the sale of the product is whatever the market will bear so as to satisfy item 1. Apparently the product is computer software or some other such thing. 3. Apply loss leaders to gain market share, in the expectation that eventually the up-front costs (losses) of these leaders can be recovered by eventually gaining a larger market share (and once again, satisfying item 1). 4. Attempting to keep customers satisfied or at least placated about the product by occasionally offering low-cost 'fixes' for possible defects in the product (keeping in mind item 1). 5. Raising concerns about all competing products (quality, stability, or whatever marketing or other tactic available) so as to convince the customer that competing products cannot be useful to them, reguardless of whether those products fit the customers need or not (so as to continue satisfying item 1). So if I were to analyse any advantage Microsoft has, while keeping in mind item 1, I seen Microsoft having no advantage at all.

  78. Advantage: MSFT by quarkscat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I am waiting for the time when MSFT has all updates and security patches restricted by their WGA initiative. When the next trojan/virus/worm hits the internet that fouls up the Registry, every business worldwide that is chained to MSFT will come to realize that MSFT has become their "silent partner". The Mafia's "protection rackets" of the 1920's and 1930's will look like child's play in comparison to the disruption of business that MSFT will be responsible for. And by the time that realization comes, it will be too late for many businesses -- they will grudgingly pay MSFT whatever is demanded, just in order to stay in business. And Borg Bill will have swept the "World Domination" Monopoly (TM) game.

  79. Re:Got hit by that "feature" today, VERY annoying. by Stir · · Score: 0

    I own a license of XP. After upgrading my system a few times and then installing new HDs I said F THIS. I am tired of sitting on the phone and reading my serial number to some person who is going to ask me to repeat it. So I run SP2 Corp version with a keygen. Was it worth it? Hell yes. Hell if I'm going to be treated like a criminal then why not act like one.

  80. We HAVE to use windows... by spoco2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... if we want to play any decent number of games... I'm afraid you kind of have to use it, so don't be so high and mighty and say "Well just don't use it", because we have to.

    1. Re:We HAVE to use windows... by geminidomino · · Score: 0, Troll

      You only "have to use it" if your primary use for a $2000 computer is essentially emulating a $300 game console.

    2. Re:We HAVE to use windows... by Penguin+Follower · · Score: 1

      That or if you just hate playing on consoles. Keyboard + mouse 4-ever! I hate console controllers. Trying to play Pariah on Xbox with those controllers vs having a mouse and keyboard and playing it on my PC is worlds different. I'm 10x better with a mouse than a thumbstick when it comes to aiming.

    3. Re:We HAVE to use windows... by spoco2 · · Score: 1

      Except one with a modding community, backwards compatibility back MUCH further than consoles, better resolution, better controls, more involved games, a wider selection of games... and let's not forget this... I also use it as an actual PC for my accounting, documents, photo editing, web publishing, file sharing, viewing video files on my tv etc. etc. etc.

      It's ONE machine that does ALL that... and does it all damn well, and does it under windows.

      If I want to run Photoshop, Office, Games, Dreamweaver et el... well, it's Windows for me, and I'm very happy with it.

    4. Re:We HAVE to use windows... by bombshelter13 · · Score: 1

      Show me a 300$ game console will let me play a game at 1600x1200 resolution using a keyboard and mouse while simultaneously playing a movie on the secondary monitor and displaying MSN Messenger conversations on the third screen... this theoretical console must also be able to send the audio from the video game and the audio from the movie to the mixer via two distinct left/right cable pairs using balanced connections. Until such a console exists, my 2000$ computer certainly isn't emulating a 300$ console.

    5. Re:We HAVE to use windows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another PC gamer having trouble grasping the concept of their being other games besides FPS I see. If you actually cared to look about, you'd notice that most games on console AREN'T FPS', and work MUCH BETTER with a dual-analogue input method. But then, if you think Pariah is a good game I guess it's already too late for you.

    6. Re:We HAVE to use windows... by fr0dicus · · Score: 1
      Better controls and wider selection my ass.

      wasd+mouse is rubbish for third person and driving games, which provide the bulk of great console games, and are much better, and are providing much more original gameplay week after week than just playing FPS/RTS all day every day. Not sure if you noticed, but the PC gaming market stopped innovating back in the 20th Century, when all the good gaming dev houses moved to consoles.

      Sure, you can plug a joypad or a wheel in, but there's nothing but bad console ports and a tiny smattering of dull driving 'simulators'.

    7. Re:We HAVE to use windows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's possible in this enlightened day to purchase TV's that don't flicker you know, and from a realistic distance, say the comfort of the couch, resolution isn't important.

      But I expect your parents won't let you play on the TV downstairs, eh?

    8. Re:We HAVE to use windows... by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      PC games have thier place as well.
      Morrowind and the Sims stand out as just two examples of where pc's are clearly superior to consoles.
      Oddly enough someone acted like fps were all pc gamers cared about, yet that genre is where consoles tend to shine(except in realm of Maps, consoles simply don't even touch pc's here).
      I only find consoles marginally better for the race games, unless you but a good steering wheel and pedal set which you could also do for consoles.
      Simply put there are areas where each is clearly superior to the other and it's not likely to change without one of them taking on the characteristics of the other and essentially eliminating the distinction.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    9. Re:We HAVE to use windows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unlike you console lamers, we like to play real games like first person shooters, simulations, rpgs, and online.

      you may be comfortable playing jump'n'runs with your game pad all day for yourself. for the rest, keyboard+mouse is so much better.

      next you tell me you own in fps' with a gamepad just as much as i do with a mouse. hahaha.

    10. Re:We HAVE to use windows... by rikkards · · Score: 1

      My big issue with consoles is that the resolution sucks unless you blow a huge amount of money on a new tv and the game comes in the higher resolutions. However with the oncoming move to HD and everyone being forced to go that way. I would expect that this will change.

    11. Re:We HAVE to use windows... by Walkiry · · Score: 1

      > You only "have to use it" if your primary use for a $2000 computer is essentially emulating a $300 game console.

      My $2,000 computer would be $1,700 if I didn't play any games on it (to use your nicely rounded-up numbers). I use it for many more things than just playing games, some of which require as much processor speed and memory as I can spare, so on top of that I just plug a $200 video card and a $100 copy of Windows to play games. I'd love to lose the $100 though.

      --
      ---- Take the Space Quiz!
    12. Re:We HAVE to use windows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a fucking loser!!!!

      Go outside lardass

    13. Re:We HAVE to use windows... by SomeoneGotMyNick · · Score: 1

      You forgot to configure your PC to also crack the running game CD and DVD movie, simultaneously, while writing their contents to two seperate recorders at speeds of at least 12x. At the same time you're doing the stuff you're mentioning.

      I reserve a $2000 PC for productive use. The slight gaming advantage a PC may have over a console does not justify the $1700 price difference. I use my PC for DV editing of home movies. My console has another shining aspect in that the games don't eat up precious HD space. When working with DV, 1GB is about 5 minutes of video, so every little bit counts.

      The only thing you impressed us with is your chronic level of ADHD.

    14. Re:We HAVE to use windows... by labratuk · · Score: 1

      When you're talking about playing games, there's no such thing as 'have to'.

      --
      Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
    15. Re:We HAVE to use windows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That last comment made you an infidel :)

    16. Re:We HAVE to use windows... by iainl · · Score: 1

      OK, so that should have been using a $2000 PC to emulate a $1000 PC and a $300 console at the same time. Oh, what a huge mistake.

      Sure, you'll have to wait until October to play at 1920x1080 on a $300 XBox 360, but that's still half the price of a GeForce 7800.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    17. Re:We HAVE to use windows... by syrinx · · Score: 1

      If you actually enjoy driving games, feel free to stick with your console.

      I've still never seen a good strategy game on a console. Let me know when Civ4 is availble for XWhateverstation.

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
    18. Re:We HAVE to use windows... by sandmaninator · · Score: 1


      I agree.
      I really wish MS would come out with a Windows XP Gamer edition for $20 that could be so crippled it couldn't even run a WWW browser.
      All I NEED windows for is games. I can use Linux for everything else.

      P.S. - Battlefield 2 Requires Windows XP. Windows 2000 will soon be obsolete as a gaming platform.

    19. Re:We HAVE to use windows... by Neoprofin · · Score: 0

      When talking about computers there's no such thing as "have to" Gamers can play tiddlywinks. Programmers can work at McDonalds Hospitals can go back to the 70s. Or you could just accept that the much hated Windows does have a use sometimes, to some people.

  81. finally... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    The Indians finally found out about the "don't validate now" check box. Congrats, Indians!

    1. Re:finally... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which the americans have yet to discover? Maybe if they finally get their lazy asses off the couch, they could

  82. So aside from Microsoft itself... by Txiasaeia · · Score: 1

    ...are there any sites out there that offer Windows updates without having to use the blasted installer? Just curious for, you know... academic reasons.

    --
    Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
  83. What if I'm running a Software Update Server? by Robber+Baron · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...and my workstation is set to retreive its patches from it, rather than M$'s site?

    Currently it contains 1.6GB of what appears to be every M$ update known to man, (including a bunch of crap that I didn't really want, but hey...hard drives are cheap) and they're all .exe files. ...which leads me to another point: Once the updates are in the wild, they WILL get passed around, and there's nothing M$ can do about it.

    --

    You're using her as bait, Master!

  84. WRONG by JWeinraub · · Score: 0

    I have experimented and I have passed WGA by using a generated cd-key. the same one that allowed me to use sp1, sp2, and now it seems wga. its just a dumb algorithm that can be fooled quite easily.

  85. I use Linux and OS X, do I care about this rap? by crovira · · Score: 1

    No.

    Its only useful to somebody who'd STEAL XP.

    Like, if somebody's that stupid, he deserves the viruses, worms and other creepy crawlies.

    On to other news...

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
    1. Re:I use Linux and OS X, do I care about this rap? by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      Like, if somebody's that stupid, he deserves the viruses, worms and other creepy crawlies.


      HEY! I take offence at that!

      They're rabbits I tell you!!! RABBITS!!!!!!!.....
      --
  86. And the story broken one month ago... by This+is+outrageous! · · Score: 1
    --
    This is...

    O
    U
    T
    R
    A
    G
    E
    O
    U
    S

    !

  87. No, that was a misspelling by abulafia · · Score: 1

    They couldn't accent it correctly. What you're getting is a smooth, meaty paste made from... cloth. Don't get me wrong, expensive cloth, it is! And I'm sure eating it will make you feel secure. Ummmm. Good, right? Can I interest you in a coffee, or a port?

    --
    I forget what 8 was for.
    1. Re:No, that was a misspelling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Said like a true clothpate.

  88. Re:Got hit by that "feature" today, VERY annoying. by kyoko21 · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it have been easier if you just downloaded the 34MB redistributable executable? I downloaded it fine on my Linux box... even though I can't use it.

  89. Breaking news by Ponzicar · · Score: 3, Funny

    I just heard that Microsoft has announced the creation of a new program, called "Consumer Protection Genuine Advantage Validator". In the near future users will have to have their activeX Genuine Advantage software confirmed to be valid and unpirated before it will let them confirm their windows installation as valid and unpirated.

  90. The real acronym by Daath · · Score: 4, Funny

    WGA is really an acronym for Windows Genuine Annoyance, but Microsoft opted for "Advantage" since it sounded better marketing-wise. :D

    --
    Any technology distinguishable from magic, is insufficiently advanced.
    1. Re:The real acronym by MinutiaeMan · · Score: 1

      No no, the name is actually correct, it's just that most people don't realize there's an apostrophe left out -- the real name is Windows' Genuine Advantage.

  91. Genuine Advantage by ThisIsFred · · Score: 1

    I figured he found out how to prevent Microsoft from strong-arming OEMs with "preferential" pricing. I mean, that's their "genuine advantage", isn't it?

    --
    Fred

    "A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
    -RMS
    1. Re:Genuine Advantage by ShoobieRat · · Score: 1

      You act like Microsoft's the only company that does this.

    2. Re:Genuine Advantage by ThisIsFred · · Score: 1

      I can't think of any other companies that were handed an entire market segment by the company that produced it.

      --
      Fred

      "A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
      -RMS
    3. Re:Genuine Advantage by ShoobieRat · · Score: 1

      Yer not trying very hard, then. There's tons of companies that give preferential treatment to customers based on their type of ownership, and there are tons of companies who consume products developed by others and assume the market for those products as their own.

      Software company X sees product Y, buys product Y (or partnerships with company owning Y) and sells it as their own product as a component of company X's product. Happens all the time. The fact that Microsoft is one of the largest doing this, doesn't change the fact. It just makes them more visible. And as the owners of the environment these products are in, Microsoft is in a prime position to demand and reject what they will. You would do no different in their position.br>
      As for the whole "geniune" argument, come on. If you buy a used car, you get different treatment than if you bought a dealership's new models. If you legally bought your MS product, you have a genuine MS product, and have no reason to be complaining. If you have an illegal copy, fuck off and die.

      If MS wants to weed out its legal users from its illegal users, what's the problem? If yer a legal user, you have nothing to worry about and should shut up about this. If yer an illegal user, what did you expect? You stole the software and now MS is trying to nail you for it. Too bad. Stop crying and just remove yourself from the gene pool quietly.

    4. Re:Genuine Advantage by ThisIsFred · · Score: 1
      Software company X sees product Y, buys product Y (or partnerships with company owning Y) and sells it as their own product as a component of company X's product. Happens all the time. The fact that Microsoft is one of the largest doing this, doesn't change the fact.
      Yeah, it kinda does. There is no other choice for most OEMs. They're too timid to fight, because Microsoft's non-preferential pricing (it goes both ways) could put them out of business by pushing their price point above the competition. Imagine if that happened elsewhere:

      Me: Hey, I'm cancelling my DSL.
      Telco: Why?
      Me: Cable is a better deal.
      Telco: Fuck you! Your basic phone service now costs 30 percent more!

      Granted, of course, that there is no option for telephony elsewhere. That's more akin to what Microsoft does, and it certainly isn't commonplace elsewhere, or in such a large market.
      As for the whole "geniune" argument, come on. If you buy a used car, you get different treatment than if you bought a dealership's new models. If you legally bought your MS product, you have a genuine MS product, and have no reason to be complaining. If you have an illegal copy, fuck off and die.
      Hey, I never said anything about this, so you don't have to get upset about it. I don't have a problem with Microsoft withholding or blocking users of illegal copies from getting updates. I was merely having fun with the meaning of the term "genuine advantage".
      --
      Fred

      "A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
      -RMS
  92. update from microsoft...at your peril by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now why would ANYONE want to contact microsoft for
    anything? You know all you would get by phone is confirmation that mankind has eminently succeeded in making of the telephone a useless decoration. As for your computer, only a fool would even think about getting his machine in contact with an evil empire like micro$$$$$$$. Who knows what he/she would come up with? Probably digital siff or clap....or maybe spyware, adware, malware, trackware......DRM......ad nauseum. You know, like the 140 MB farce of a DRM kitty called XP SP2!

  93. naked. by Erris · · Score: 1
    "Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man." The second is from Karl von Clausewitz: "If you entrench yourself behind strong fortifications, you compel the enemy seek a solution elsewhere." I think these speak volumes.

    Blah, blah, blah, very wise. How about this:

    Using a Windows on the internet is like being naked in a hailstorm.

    or

    Using Windows on a network is like visiting a whore house without a condom but can be more expensive.

    --
    DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
    1. Re:naked. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to use 'M$" as in you last troll post.

  94. No fun. by padamj · · Score: 0, Troll

    I don't understand what's the use of this....

    Why would anyone want to replicate bad software, by a bad company trying to take over the world by monopilistic attitude.

    Use Linux/Apple, pirating M$ is only benefiting M$.

    A lot of us know that M$ workings are unethical. So stealing from a thief doesn't help!

  95. Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  96. This story was reported weeks ago by I'm+Don+Giovanni · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Must be a slow news day. This story was reported a month ago on May 23, 2005. At cnet, no less; not exactly an obscure news source.
    http://news.com.com/Bypass+found+for+Windows+pirac y+check/2100-1002_3-5717127.html

    And it was picked up by others, for example:
    http://techrepublic.com.com/2100-1009_11-5717127.h tml

    Why is this story making the rounds again?

    --
    -- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
  97. "impenetrable" by peted20 · · Score: 1

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

  98. Pointless by vspazv · · Score: 1

    I've been using generated keys to go through the microsoft validation programs since they introduced them a few months ago. Ive never gotten a rejection saying im using an illegal copy.

    The only people this will hurt are the consumers that get ripped off by shady computer dealers and repair centers.

    I should also point out i have 5 NFR copies of XP Pro sitting on my shelf but I'm too lazy to deal with the activation people every other week when I test new hardware.

  99. Re:Uh... so... I can't be the only one wondering t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft offers you incredible and GENUINE advantages, such as... um... wasted time and a terrible headache. Isn't is so kind of them?!

  100. registration, yes... by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

    Registration, mandatory with Mac OS X.
    Activation, no.

    And you can even get around the registration if you are a bit crafty.

    But either way, Mac OS X won't suddenly decide to stop working on you in the future and make you re-authenticate like Windows can do. (Although this has never happened to me.)

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    1. Re:registration, yes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can bypass the registration by hitting Command-Q.. don't know if it's against the EULA though. ;)

  101. Microsoft's PR by tadauphoenix · · Score: 2, Funny

    Microsoft confirmed the claims of Mohanty, but sought to downplay it saying, "It represents very little threat."

    Microsoft hired Baghdad Bob. I'm sure of it.

  102. What's this nonsense then? by bigberk · · Score: 1

    Let's review this nonsense of an operating system that does not cooperate with you. I refuse to run any operating system that pesters me with activation codes etc, if I do something simple like modify the hardware. I'm still running Windows 2000 and refuse to move to any release that includes mechanisms to lock me out of my own system. I don't need the hassle, and I won't PAY for the privilege of being harassed.

    There was a widespread incident a few years back where corporate installations of Microsoft Office expired on some date and required a web activation. This resulted in millions of dollars of lost productivity world wide while IT departments scrambled to get valid codes for all those machines with word processors that failed for no particular reason.

    Is this the future of computing? Well I'm not putting up with that kind of crap. If I'm running OpenOffice on Linux or FreeBSD, I know my operating system or application vendor isn't going to wake up on the wrong side of the bed one morning and kick my ass out of my system.

    1. Re:What's this nonsense then? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      The future is the Trusted Computing Initiative: the activation codes will be node-locked to the BIOS or the CPU, with decently well encrypted keys, and you had better believe that these systems will be calling back to the mothership with your locally generated public keys to verify your ownership of your software, or even your ability to boot the machine because you've purchased an OS with a registered kernel.

    2. Re:What's this nonsense then? by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
      I am actually beginning to believe that this might actually be a ploy to get DRM through the door much easier...

      In other words, MS make it as difficult as possible for legitimate users to do what they need to so that when DRM rears it's ugly little head, everyone flocks to it open-armed...

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  103. I don't understand what the fuss is about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm sorry but maybe I'm missing the point here... for about 6+ months, there's been a newer key generator floating around the 'net that will generate Windows installation keys which pass the ActiveX WGA check. If WinXP is installed using one of these keys, it will appear genuine anyway. And, there's even a way to change the product key without re-installing the OS. So has this crack really done anything?

    I guess it's more useful as a method for those who don't want/know how to find and download a working keygenerator (since all it requires is a valid copy of the OS and downloading a MS-hosted tool)... but this scheme has been broken a long time ago.

  104. Special olympics by pluggo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The only thing better than winning the Special Olympics is not being retarded. :)

    --
    Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in all kinds of directions. It's the only way to mak
  105. It's soooo easy by __aahlyu4518 · · Score: 1

    Easy to get around this...

    Just don't use Windows :-) And if you really want to... just buy the damn thing !

    1. Re:It's soooo easy by KillerBob · · Score: 1

      Or download it through MSDN or MSDN/AA. I didn't pay a dime for my copy of XP Pro, and it's 100% legal.

      I still run Linux as my primary OS, though. :)

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
  106. irrelevant by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

    Why not spread some of the blame to the hackers, crackers, and script kiddies?

    Because there's no control over those hackers, crackers and script kiddies? Duh? However Microsoft does have control over how it does updates to Windows, and trying to deny updates to pirated copies, they hurt their own customers from those vunerable machines that then spread worms/viruses/spam.

  107. Re:I Put an end to it two years ago. by felixdzerzhinsky · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I install Debian linux. These days I run Ubuntu.

    --
    "Flags are bits of colored cloth that governments use first to shrink-wrap people's brains..."
  108. Re:cannot build a fortress anymore by zmollusc · · Score: 1

    Meh. Just build it big. A fortress as big as china will be hard to take on even with tactical nukes as you would need to know which bit to tactically nuke. Nuke the whole thing and you will need a lot of canned food till all the crap falls out of the atmosphere.

    --
    They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
  109. You're a liar, 2003 wasn't available seperatly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Windows Media Center wasn't available as a software package for purchase until the MCE 2005 version, and then only as an OEM Package.

    Prior to that, the ONLY way to get Windows Media Center was to buy an entire PC with the Software pre-installed.

  110. What IS the genuine advantage of (using) Windows? by Ulrich+Hobelmann · · Score: 1

    Maybe the headline should mention this.

  111. Re:Why I hate XP Key Codes (nice troll...) by davidstrauss · · Score: 1
    A friend of mine bought a Gateway computer a couple of years ago with XP Home on it. After installing and uninstalling several pieces of software the system locked and he couldn't get it to "boot." So being the tech savvy friend in the industry he brings the PC to me. The system is asking for a Microsoft Authentication Code.

    Nice troll. The OEM copies of Windows XP don't run the same activation system as the retail versions. The OEM copies are bound to the OEM's BIOS. And nothing for XP's activation scheme is called the "Microsoft Authentication Code." There's only a product key and an activation code.

  112. wasn't the whole S/N scheme already cracked? by lonedroid · · Score: 1

    One year ago or so some XP serial number generating numbers that apparently cannot be dissociated from legit ones appeared. There is at least one .exe, called mskey4in1.exe or something like that, that can generate serial numbers that are recognized as legal by WGA. Why would a pirate take the pain to use a temporary hack based on a legit copy of XP when he can directly generate a S/N that is recognized as legit and hence directly passes the WGA test?

  113. activate once, reuse by steve_l · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you have virtual PC or vmware you dont need to activate more than once.

    I have winXP VMs (domained, undomained), and a win98 vm (historical quirk). Once you get a stable image with msoffice, activate it, snapshot it, and duplicate the VM image. One tip: activate and snapshot before you domain it, as it is a real pain to undomain a win2k-domained image.

    Virtualization defeats activation.

  114. What's the big deal about XP anyway? by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
    I've found no piece of hardware yet that doesn't have drivers for or install under Windows 2000 plus XP has a bloated interface that you have to spend some time stripping out to get it working in anything near a decent fashion.

    And please don't talk to me about firewalls & Windows Security Centre in XP SP2 - the money you spend upgrading to XP would be better spent on a broadband router which makes software firewalling redundant anyhow.

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  115. Re:cannot build a fortress anymore by reidbold · · Score: 1

    Just becaues something is bigger doesn't mean it is stronger. The bigger you make something, the heavier it becomes, and the weight has to be carried by the structure itself in the case of a fortress.

    Or of course you could just wait a while until China died out due to lack of sunlight, and air.

    --
    -Reid
  116. That's why M$ business model is non-sustainable. by crovira · · Score: 1

    Even if you think that 99% of the users out there are legit, that still leaves over two million people who are running illegal copies. (If you think that its less than 99%, the problems are scaled proportionally.)

    At $200 per box (a figure quoted here) that comes to $200,000,000.00 worth. That pays the salaries of a lot of lawyers wo figure out way to collect, not nicely, just to collect from legit users.

    All that you need to do is be able to identify them all.

    Good luck since getting some mom-n-pop box builder in "Po'nuf town" somewhere to pay you the tithe can often means that they don't eat this week.

    Activation codes means that the software is designed to run on any hardware, any number of times WITH NOTHING TIEING A COPY TO A MACHINE.

    This is NOT a problem for Linux which is free but its a big problem for Microsoft which is not.

    OS X doesn't have this problem since it only runs and is installable on Mac hardware. And Appple CAN tie a piece of hardware that they sold to any given user and not give a fig about any copy of the OS. (You want SoftwareUpdate to work? GOT'CHA!)

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  117. I so agree with you! by amichalo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    lot of people are buying software and use cracked version EXACTLY because of the fact that all legitimate software puts totally INSANE overhead that only irritates clients and in the end penalize them.

    Fifteen years ago, when I was a kid and didn't have any money, I pirated software to have something useful to do with my computer. With the advent of Linux and having a job, I don't steal software any more. (And oddly, I find the software I do buy to be 21st century versions of the same software I used to steal.)

    The one "exception" is the only game I have on my Mac. I bought Civilization III for the Mac because I had loved the previous two's complex strategic systems. But Civ III, to avoid software piracy I suppose, required the CD to always be in the computer. Worse, it would often spin the disc constantly.

    On my laptop, this meant hardware strain on an expensive to replace unit and lower battery life.

    So I downloaded the ISO and just mount it when I want to play. No overhead of spinning discs and low battery life!

    --
    I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
  118. I'm Not a Doctor... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Re:MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL (Score:5, Interesting)
    by yotto (590067) on Wednesday June 22, @08:07PM (#12885927)

    Genuine Advantage (What kind of name is that? What does it mean? It's not to my advantage to have to prove I paid for Windows every time I need to reinstall) and the like is one of the main reasons I switched to linux for everything but Grand Theft Auto. I refuse to pay ~$100 and then be treated like a theif.


    You refuse to be treated like a thief, yet you continue to use Windows so that you can play one.
  119. Re:Why I hate XP Key Codes (nice troll...) by Bri3D · · Score: 2, Insightful

    He ment the activation code, the code that you have to put in if you don't have Internet access and are activating. And some OEM copies are not bound, it depends on the manufacturer. Many computer companies don't take the time to bind XP to their BIOS. Don't think this is true? Take for example the OEM copies you can buy with mobos/HDs/whatever off the internet-not bound to anything, but still have an OEM key and you still have to ACTIVATE. You clearly don't know what you are talking about. Nice microsoft fanboy...

  120. Who pays $2000 for a gaming pc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dell 400sc: $400
    memory upgrade: $100
    last year's best video card: $125
    quality sound card: $40

    Plus PC games are just way, way prettier at high resolutions. Try making 400yd ironsight kills in a first-person shooter on a TV screen. You can't even identify targets, they're just blobs.

    I AM NOT A ROBOT

  121. Guerrilla? by phorm · · Score: 1

    Hackers Vs MS isn't exactly guerrilla warfare. The opponents (either through business or practice) of MS include everything from rival businesses to script-kiddies to pro-hackers.

    You have your script-kiddies which are like the guerrillas, opposing companies which are like standing armies, and the hackers which are at times like ninjas or snipers...

  122. LAME hack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is nothing special AT ALL. Its similiar to entering someone else's serial number on a warez download.

    arrrg what a waste of time

    1. Re:LAME hack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct. If it was a keygen, or crack then it would be newsworthy.
      Who promoted this thread anyway ?

  123. Re:We HAVE to use cocaine... by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    ... if we want to make a decent amount of money...

    --
    What?
  124. Market share by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmm, if 52-48% are still using Windows 2000, and half of Windows XP versions are just illegal copies, I guess MS really only has 25% market penetration with new software, and this is near the END of the Windows XP life cycle. Longhorn will be less?

  125. The solution... by svallarian · · Score: 1

    Modify the setupp.ini (in i386 folder on any XP CD) file to accept OEM keys, then you can install it from the fresh copy of XP home.

    However, beware of HPs, even after you change the strings in setupp.ini it still won't work. You'll need to clone the "ExtraData" settings.

    --
    I patented screwing your mom. But it got revoked for "prior art."
  126. Re:Got hit by that "feature" today, VERY annoying. by Control-Z · · Score: 1


    If I could mod you up I would. I and probably a lot of other geeks do just what you did. I will not be presumed guilty by MS and have to keep proving my innocence over and over.

    I don't use TurboTax any more either.

  127. 100% un-hackable firewall config: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    air gap the network connection

  128. Re:Why I hate XP Key Codes (nice troll...) by davidstrauss · · Score: 1
    Many computer companies don't take the time to bind XP to their BIOS.

    ...and Gateway is one of the ones that does take the time. Nice try. You'd have a case with a generic OEM copy 30 DAYS after install, but not with a new Gateway system.