WGA — Too Many False Positives

An anonymous reader writes, "Microsoft insists that its Windows Genuine Advantage anti-piracy program is nearly flawless. But that's not the impression you get when you visit the company's WGA Validation Problems forum. Ed Bott at ZDNet went through 137 problem reports submitted there during a two-week period, each one accompanied by the output from the official Microsoft diagnostic utility, and found that 42% of the people reporting problems were actually running Genuine software. From the article: 'One large group consists of people who, for some unexplained reason, were displaying cryptographic errors related to digital signatures. The problem is so common, in fact, that Microsoft representatives have a canned response they paste into replies to forum visitors who appear to be showing false positives caused by these errors.' In a related story, the first WGA errors from Windows Vista and Office 2007 have appeared in the wild."

Comments

42%

[LinuxGeek]

42%? I guess that is why WGA should be described as "Mostly harmless" rather than "nearly flawless".

The Spin of the Dot

[eldavojohn]

I'm glad Ed Bott was able to discern which people were using genuine software and which had copies. People can get copies from machine vendors without knowing it, you know. Did he have access to Microsoft's database?

It's more than likely that one of the very few problems you could experience with this software is that it gives you a false positive--therefore a high percentage of forum posts are based on this problem.

Honestly, do you think that every person who used this with success went straight to the forum boards and posted "Success! Thanks Microsoft!"?

In a related story, the first WGA errors from Windows Vista and Office 2007 have appeared in the wild.

Wait, you're trying to tell me that a software program run on thousands of machines has failed in some cases!? No fscking way. That never happens--WGA should be error free--this is unacceptable.

In the software world, 137 problems on say 5,000 cases of average people using your brand new product is "nearly flawless." I would guess 50% are user error, 42% false positives and 8% other.

How is this news? Come on guys, I hate Microsoft as much as the next Linux user but I'm not blindly stupid about it ... leave bending percentages and pointing out unavoidable errors to the politicians & corporate America, please! WGA sucks. But let's tear down its principle and theory--not the implementation.

Re:The Spin of the Dot

[eln]

The percentage may be exaggerated, but the problem is still significant. The WGA software basically shuts you off from the upgrades you should be entitled to as a valid Windows user. In theory, this would be fine if Microsoft had reliable data as to who is a legitimate user and who isn't. However, it seems that Microsoft's data is not as reliable as it should be. Shutting your customers off from updates the already paid for (by virtue of paying for the software) because you don't have accurate data on who actually bought your product is irresponsible at best.

Re:The Spin of the Dot

[Dynedain]

I'm glad Ed Bott was able to discern which people were using genuine software and which had copies. People can get copies from machine vendors without knowing it, you know. Did he have access to Microsoft's database?

If you RTFA, you'd see that they limited their survey to people on the WGA forum who were having problems and upon request ran MS's "WGA Diagnostic" utility and posted the results. That utility throws back one of 4 results: Genuine, Blocked VLK, Invalid Product Key, and Not Activated. So as far as MS is concerned, they are legit, and not copies, but the WGA program still flagged them as not legit because of things other software (like a McAffe "quick clean" product) did to their system.

Re:The Spin of the Dot

[nine-times]

Wait, you're trying to tell me that a software program run on thousands of machines has failed in some cases!? No fscking way. That never happens--WGA should be error free--this is unacceptable.

I think the point is that there are a significant number of apparently legitimate Windows users who are having problems with their computers because of WGA. Since WGA offers no benefit to users, this is an instance of Microsoft taking actions which harm their own legitimate customers because of a policy which doesn't help any customers.

What I'm saying is, we accept software to malfunction now and then, so when the whole complicated piece of software has a couple bugs, that's expected. When a developer tries to integrate a new feature that benefits large numbers of customers but harms a small number due to a bug, that's forgivable. However, when a developer takes action to punish illegitimate users, developers should tread very lightly. It almost feels like vigilante justice, and you should make sure that it's not an issue for legitimate customers. They might have every legal right to do it, but as a customer, I do find it unacceptable. Microsoft purposefully shutting down an otherwise working system, causing a loss of man-hours, because they've falsely identified it as "suspect"-- I find that to be sufficient reason to complain.

As if we needed another reason.

Re:The Spin of the Dot

[popeye44]

Well I handle 400 pc's on a single floor of a building and we use corp licensing. We haven't installed it on a single pc as of yet. However I personally on the side take care of 5-6 pc's running windows Xp pro. the 1 machine I allowed this software to be installed on now tells me I have to go get a license. I uninstalled their "criticial piece of bullshit software? NAGWARE!" and haven't looked back. This is a dell purchased machine that hasn't even been rebuilt once and it's telling me I'm not legit. If only I'd stuck with nix back in 97 but alas.. someone has to support the corp.

Re:The Spin of the Dot

[k98sven]

I do agree that the principle of the thing is a lot more relevant argument than the implementation. But I don't think that means you shouldn't be able to complain about the latter as well, if it has faults. What's being pointed out here are indeed faults. But you're dead wrong in saying that they're unavoidable.

Every test will ultimately have faults. They will always produce some amount false negatives and false positives, and to that extent you're right in saying that they're unavoidable.

But! That doesn't mean they are equally unavoidable. Depending on the consequences of false negatives and positives, you can and should design your test to avoid one, possibly at the cost of another.

For instance, when testing for a disease, the consequence of a false positive indicates a healthy person is sick. A false negative indicates a sick person is healthy. Obviously the former scenario is a lot more preferable. Proper disease tests are designed in exactly that way, so that the probability of the former is usually several orders of magnitude larger than the latter. (This is also why they almost always do further tests on a positive result.)

Okay. So in the WGA scenario, a false positive means an honest customer is getting screwed out of support they paid for. (I'd actually call it a false negative though, since they're not running 'genuine' software.) A false negative means someone running pirated software gets support they weren't entitled to.

At least from the consumer perspective, the latter scenario is definitely better. In an ideal market, that would be what would be best for MS too. However, it's not an ideal market situation, because they're a monopoly. That makes it possible for them to push their own interest at the expense of the customer to a lot larger extent.

So I think there's every reason to criticise MS here. If they didn't intend for this, it's badly designed software. Given their massive install-base, they should be expected to be careful in designing this stuff. Given their equally massive profit, they certainly have the resources to do so. If they did intend this, then they're screwing their own customers just to save a buck on support.

Incompetence or malice: Take your pick. But in neither case would I hold MS blameless.

My Experience with a WGA False Positive

[Kelson]

Back in July(?) when Microsoft issued an update to the WGA tool, I figured I may as well install it (I'd be forced to eventually) on my one Windows box. So I installed it, and rebooted, and the login screen proclaimed loudly that Windows was not genuine. (Well, not literally loudly, it didn't shout over the speakers or anything -- which would be an interesting deterrent, now that I think about it.)

This came as something of a surprise, given that:

1. This was a Dell, not some no-name computer.
2. It still had the original OS install, and no hardware had been changed.
3. The previous version of WGA had reported no problems.

I logged in, did some searching on Microsoft's knowledge base, and found a link that said something like "Validate here." I clicked on it.

To my surprise, it told me my copy was perfectly valid.

I eventually concluded that Norton Internet Security had blocked the initial validation attempt. Because there was no desktop shell, there was no opportunity for it to pop up a notice and ask me if I wanted it to let the data through.

After that experience, I can't say I'm surprised that Microsoft found many of their false positives to be the result of security software. Admittedly, they were looking at registry changes, crypto problems and McAfee, rather than a transient error with Norton.

Made Up Statistics

[Tama00]

Did you know that 95.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.

Umm, selection bias....?

[Otter]

Ed Bott at ZDNet went through 137 problem reports submitted there during a two-week period, each one accompanied by the output from the official Microsoft diagnostic utility, and found that 42% of the people reporting problems were actually running Genuine software.

Wild guess here -- people with legitimate software are a lot more likely to submit problem reports than people with bad copies are to post "My 1337 w4r3z w0n7 w0rk! G00d j0b!"

Just the other day....

[zappepcs]

Just the other day, some /.er was trying to say that Linux isn't ready for primetime. While this might be taken out of context slightly, it doesn't look like Windows is ready for primetime either. More to the point, the differences between OS's is more a case of how many problems and what type of problems you are willing to put up with. I can't see this story as anything but a boon for the various Linux distributions, and of course, for Apple.

One facet of this comparison is that Linux (generally) does not claim to be perfect, or the best operating system to have. This, to me, looks like the playground bully trying to recover from having his pants fall down around his ankles.

While WGA is a plausibly good idea for someone that sells their software, the implementation of it has left a lot to be desired.

The Question Is...

[TheGreatHegemon]

How many false copies of windows pass as authentic?

What about false Positives?

[LinuxGeek]

Hmmm, I wonder how long it will be before someone is able to get Wine to run the WGA utils well enough to get accepted as genuine.

What's counted as false positive

[dtfinch]

That's when WGA says the copy is non-genuine, and Microsoft's Genuine Advantage diagnostics tool disagrees and says it's genuine.

What I don't get is why they don't just take the flawless detection code from the diagnostics tool and put it into WGA.

Shouldn't even exist

[XanC]

WGA should not exist. It causes hassle for paying customers, that's all. Pirates find their way around. If it worked perfectly, it would be bad enough, but if even one legitimate person is locked out of his computer, MS has some serious explaining to do.

Why exactly would you install the WGA update?

[ddent]

I see no advantage. Even if you have a perfectly valid copy of windows, there are really two possible outcomes:
1. System works fine, and your copy of windows keeps working just as before. No added benefits.
2. System stops working due to problem with WGA.

Given that there is no benefit and the possibility of a downside, I fail to see why you would choose to install or use such a technology if you know about it. It is a move with only a negative expected value.

I just don't understand

[pembo13]

Is Windows drug like in nature? It keeps doing things to people, that said people don't seem to like. Yet they keep coming back. I used Windows since 3.1, I never really liked it..but always thought that it was the best thing out there. As soon as I found that things could be better, I slowly moved away from Windows. I am now free enough of Windows that I don't suffer any of these problems that people seem to complain about regularly. It's like windows is the abusive husband, and you all , Windows addicts, are the abused wife....get help people.

Re:Not as many as it seems.

[Chris Burke]

How many Windows users would submit a report to the WGA Problems Forum if they had a problem?

I can't say, but I'm imagining it's a very small fraction of total users.

The point though is to make sure you're comparing like to like. Problem Reports is not the same as Total Problems, just as Potential Problem Reports is not the same as Total Windows Users.

Re:Not as many as it seems.

[Firehed]

How many Windows users could submit a report to the WGA Problems Forum if they had a problem?

Unlike Slashdotters, not everyone has a spare computer or six kicking around, to deal with just such an occasion. Of course since I switched to Macs, I'm not quite sure what failing the WGA does at this point, but since I've seen the term 'locked out' more than once in this topic, I'll assume it's a bit more hostile than it used to be.

Re:Apple

[garcia]

I had been an anti-Windows person on Slashdot for a long time. Back in November of 2002 I received a computer as a present that included XP (with a key!) I switched over to being a Windows desktop user with a Linux server running everything else.

Now, with WGA (and my valid key invalidated for whatever reason), I'm now using my Mac and my Linux machines only. I have absolutely no desire to deal w/verifying with MSFT that my install is a valid one. I shouldn't have to as it's THEIR problem.

While I never trusted MSFT, there was a 3.5 year stretch there where I didn't much care either way. This one incident has turned me around right quick.

And now, for the machine that I need to have XP on for my wife to do her job, we have used several hacks to get around the WGA and get it what it needs to run. I don't feel the slightest bit guilty about it either. I paid for it and now I'm going to run it.

Why I'm running Linux on this PC

[rts008]

Here at home, out of my 3 PC's connected to the network and internet, 2 of the 3 PC's are currently running pirated copies of XP and have safely passed WGA and currently get their updates flawlessly via AutoUpdate at MS. The reason that is not 3 out of three, is last month I had to replace my HDD, reinstalled my legit, retail WinXP Pro cd, went to MS updates only to be barred from updates and activation because they determined my retail cd was pirated- have had it running on old HDD for 3 years prior with no problems.

The reason the other two are running pirated XP was an experiment after the legit pirated fiasco on this PC.

I decided I had had enough, booted into FC5, repartioned the drive to all Linux and haven't looked back.
Don't care what Vista is like, as I will not even reinstall XP anymore. This weekend, both of the other PC's will get their XP partitions deleted and go back to dual boot Win98se and Ubuntu only. The XP partitions are too small to be more than barely functional, so no sense in trying to leave them running.

So here is 3 sales/upgrades that MS won't get.

WGA locking legitimate users out

[jonasj]

I worked in a small local computer shop for a couple of months this summer. The following happened to me two times during that period.

Some customer would bring in a computer that wouldn't start. We determined that the motherboard was faulty, and replaced it with a similar one.

Windows starts up, everything works, except it wants to be re-activated again. Online activation fails, so I phone Microsoft, enter the forty-something digit number, reads the product key to someone, who then tells me that they are very sorry, but no, for some reason they cannot give me a re-activation code, so I will have to reinstall Windows in order to get it working with that product key. However, changing the product key works fine.

So I call the customer and explain the situation to them, and let them choose between:
1) me taking their harddisk out, attaching it to our backup machine, backing up all their stuff, reinstalling Windows, and all their programs, and all updates, then restoring the backups, and
2) buying a new xp home license,

they both chose option 2. That way they would get their machine back with their entire configuration intact, and if they chose option 1, all that work I would have to do would take so long time that they wouldn't be saving much anyway, compared to buying a new license.

This only happened these two times; most times when we replaced a motherboard, either the reactivation over the internet would work, or the phone representative would give a working reactivation code.

But these two customers payed for a new XP Home license even though they owned a fully legal one already.

screw wga because...

[celardore]

It offers no benefit to me. Why would I want that installed when I have a perfectly good copy of XP Corporate Edition? I don't give a shit about the latest media player, or IE7. Sure, I take the critical updates when I'm offered them but that is all. I ran the WGA tool and of course I am not a valid user of Windows XP. Saying that though, I am a legitimate owner of an XP Home license. Which I haven't used in years, I keep the keycode safe though. I used XP Home for a while, but I found it restrictive for my needs; so I installed a bootlegged copy of the corporate edition which has always been fantastic.

If MS sold their software at a lower price they would generate more sales that would compensate for the low price.
I know so many people that say "I would buy windows, if it didn't cost hundreds!" If they sold the pro edition for a cheaper price then they would sell so many more that it would compensate for the few that did pay the higher price. I'm not in marketing, I'm in accountancy, so I know about economic curves and I think MS is just milking the corporate market for as much as they can. If they opened up their 'pro' systems for lower prices I am sure their sales would increase as well as their revenue.

MS alienate potential buyers with their WGA and high prices. Set your prices low, and sell a bundle. Look at your profits, M$, you're not "hard done by".

Re:No point whining

[Fortran IV]

You should jump ship to a competitor... Oh wait, you can't be bothered. In that case, tough cheese.

Oh, please just grow up. What competitor? What other OS runs MasterCAM, Autodesk Inventor, JobBOSS, <shudder>Quickbooks</shudder> and all the other software companies like ours depend on to keep revenue coming in and the IRS satisfied?

I am sick of Windows, but I'm even sicker of the geek who assumes that just because he switched his home computer—or even his office server—over to Linux that anybody should be able to ditch Windows whenever they feel like it.

There is a real world out here, and in it there are thousands of small companies that have to use computers to communicate with their customers and suppliers and to keep up with their competitors but that are too small to afford even a part-time IT guru. Companies like that have to buy their accounting software, their production software, their shop management software, their design software—and what's for sale out here in the real world only runs on Windows.

It's not, "can't be bothered to jump to a competitor". There is no competitor, not realistically.

nothing is as aggravating as... EXACTLY!

[jonasj]

"nothing is as aggravating as realizing how many of the problems are intentional design decisions". You said it.

Re:No point whining

[JymmyZ]

Start pestering the makers of these programs to start working on porting them. The more people start making a racket about being tied to one OS and demanding that their money be given a choice, the more software companies will listen up and start working on giving us all freedom of software

RTFS

[tshak]

That's 42% of the 137 reported problems, not 42% of of all WGA installations.

Re:No point whining

[QuantumG]

Similarly, if you are locked in anyway, what motivation is there for Microsoft to fix anything? If you can't even threaten to jump ship then what are you? A galley slave. That oar you're chained to, it's called Windows.

Re:No point whining

[linguae]

Wine isn't perfect. Some Windows applications do not work well under Wine.

Re:No point whining

[Pengo]

Some???

Your joking right.. In my humble opinion, wine is a piece of shit.

Computers aren't many thousands of dollars anymore, buy a $300 emachine, and run windows on your office computer if you need to. Come on, get real.. who can't afford to buy windows that needs to be running it?

I can go down to Walmart and BUY a computer with windows and be just fine. If I need to run Peachtree. I have a small business myself (Am a partner), we have about 6 Linux servers.. 1 is running PGSQL, one is running Resin/Java... the rest are running Asterisk. We put them into a 1/2 rack that we pay $400 a month for. We have a office full of windows workstations for our Customer Service, though all of them are using Windows & Xten phones for SIP taking incoming calls on Asterisk from a phone provider who has a sip gateway. Yes , we are windows friendly... but shit.. come on!

We have an accountant that keeps our books in order, taxes in line.. she uses Peach-tree. if someone thinks a -real- business is going to have a hard time paying $375 for a low end dell, with windows.. to do NOTHING but run Peach-tree... they have their head on backwards. You will spend more than that in man hours trying to get some linux goon trying to get whatever wacky-ass hack-accounting package to work.

Windows is a commodity, cost of doing business. Running Linux or Mac is nothing more than a luxury, being a linux/java programmer myself.. I don't see any savings at all, I find nothing more than comfort in working in my own familiar environment (My Mac doing Java programming and voiceapp work on Asterisk for Linux servers).. but that's just as expensive as a MSDN membership and paying for windows licenses on servers...