Slashdot Mirror


Vista Activation Cracked by Brute Force

Bengt writes "The Inquirer has a story about a brute force Vista key activation crack. It's nothing fancy; it's described as a 'glorified guesser.' The danger of this approach is that sooner or later the key cracker will begin activating legitimate keys purchased by other consumers. From the article: 'The code is floating, the method is known, and there is nothing MS can do at this point other than suck it down and prepare for the problems this causes. To make matters worse, Microsoft will have to decide if it is worth it to allow people to take back legit keys that have been hijacked, or tell customers to go away, we have your money already, read your license agreement and get bent, we owe you nothing.'"

470 comments

  1. MS would owe at least the key by yagu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From the article summary:

    To make matters worse, Microsoft will have to decide if it is worth it to allow people to take back legit keys that have been hijacked, or tell customers to go away, we have your money already, read your license agreement and get bent, we owe you nothing.'

    I don't see how this is possible, or credible speculation even for a company a evil as MS is perceived on slashdot. I'm no MS fanboy, but I've had reasonable "service" from MS on issues of keys to activate my machines under some unusual circumstances.

    This may get sticky for MS, but for goodness sake we've got to find better bashing material on MS (and I believe there be plenty) if we want to maintain any street cred. There's no WAY MS won't be giving license keys to legitimate purchasers of XP (especially considering the vast majority are pre-activated shelf-delivered versions).

    (Aside: pure speculation on my part, but one of the most glaring weaknesses of this "claim" may be the notion of brute force, and that that is even a possible approach. Most validation handshakes require a reasonable length of time between attempts to circumvent brute force attacks... if it takes one second between attempts for billions of combinations, you're going to eventually be activating an obsolete OS. Further, after 3 or 4 incorrect attempts, any validation scheme worth its salt will quiesce for some longer inconvenient time... requiring a "cooling off" period before one can make further attempts. This story falls under the heading of "I heard someone say they knew someone whose sister's brother has figured out a Vista activation hack..." Sigh.)

    1. Re:MS would owe at least the key by DJCacophony · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Any customer who gets their key "stolen" by this program can just take it back - Vista comes with several activations on the same key. Once the customer uses the key, the previous user of it will eventually be required to re-activate.

      --
      Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
    2. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      It seems that this technique doesn't test against the microsoft server, but can tell if a key is valid on the local computer, which would actually be news.

    3. Re:MS would owe at least the key by notaprguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The commentator on the Inquirer Web site is obviously a total boob (trying to use a British-sounding insult). He's cheering theft which in its own right is sleazy. Worse, he seems to be happy that the legitimate and paying Windows Vista customers are going to be at best confused and worst case screwed because some idiot stole their key. I totally don't understand the bizarre perception that software thievs are somehow Robin-hood-like characters. They're the 21st century equivalent of pick-pockets.

    4. Re:MS would owe at least the key by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can understand the happiness a little.

      If this truely starts to be a problem with legitimate users being bothered by having their keys taken, MS will have to loosen up activation. That would be a benefit to all legitimate users.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    5. Re:MS would owe at least the key by leuk_he · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I bet...

      This is not a brute force hacker, but just a database of some key with a fancy interface on top that pretends to be calculation just just updates a progress bar. The database will release some key after some hours of "calculation". Users notice that the (enterprise?) key is accepted and tell it works. MS will notice some volume keys are used too often wan will block them at the next wga update (and the next service pack)

      Since MS cannot simply extract the leaked keys form the database they have a harder time to block them.

      Note that theinquirer article is mostly speculation based on what the program claims to do, not on facts.... just as my writing here is.

    6. Re:MS would owe at least the key by DJCacophony · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or they could NOT loosen up activation, and it would be a hindrance to all legitimate users.

      --
      Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
    7. Re:MS would owe at least the key by rednuhter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, he hopes that by showing the weakness of the activation system that we will no longer be cursed by having to use it.
      He hopes that by affecting existing/legit users that the issue will be brought to task sooner rather than later.

      --
      ERR 411[Max number of witty sigs reached]
    8. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't see how this is possible, or credible speculation even for a company a evil as MS is perceived on slashdot. I'm no MS fanboy, but I've had reasonable "service" from MS on issues of keys to activate my machines under some unusual circumstances.

      This may get sticky for MS, but for goodness sake we've got to find better bashing material on MS (and I believe there be plenty) if we want to maintain any street cred. There's no WAY MS won't be giving license keys to legitimate purchasers of XP (especially considering the vast majority are pre-activated shelf-delivered versions).


      I think you're probably right. However, all companies in similar situations don't act this way. A few years ago I bought a Russian-English translation program for my PC. I got the best one on the market. I didn't use it a lot, but it was useful to me for quick translations from Russian to English for email. At the time I didn't know Russian as well as I do now and while I could do translations by hand, it took a very long time. It was certainly worth the money to have a computer program do it for me in a few seconds and then I could double check the weird parts and re-translate those myself. It turned what might be a 2 hour translation job at the time into a 10 minute job at worse. A year or so later I had a catastrophic Windows failure and had to do a destructive reinstall. Although I had a valid license key for the translation program, it wouldn't work after the reinstall. The vendor told me their keys are valid for one use only and although I explained that I had bought the product (and they knew I had) and had to do a reinstall of Windows, I got basically "Too bad. So sad. Here's a 10% discount off our lowest price." in response, which still meant I had to buy the product at pretty close to it's normal value. I sucked it up and did that and installed my new key. However, I was very angry because I realized that to the software vendor if I needed a new key I was probably a thief and if I wanted another key, I was going to have to pay for it. After another year or so, guess what? Yep, I had to do another destructive reinstall of Windows. I decided not to rebuy the software. The babelfish translator, which is free, is not as good, but my Russian had improved a lot and I had less real use for a computer translation program. For as little as I needed to use one, babelfish was good enough. However, the vendor of the translation program has lost me forever as a customer because they weren't willing to give me the benefit of the doubt about my problem and my choice was either to buy a new key or live without the program. Their attitude was "If you need a new key, you're a thief". Since then a guy on a forum told me the magic needed to make old keys work on a reinstall, but I've never bothered with it.

    9. Re:MS would owe at least the key by khundeck · · Score: 1

      And if that is true, then perhaps collecting enough valid keys could lead to discovering the actual 'validation function' and removing the need for brute force.

      Kurt

    10. Re:MS would owe at least the key by cyclop · · Score: 1

      There is no one like a software thief. There may be someone that shares software with his neighbours, by copying it, but it is not what I'd call strictly "theft". More "disregarding copyright limits".

      --
      -- Patent no.123456: A way to personalize /. comments with a sig attached to the end.
    11. Re:MS would owe at least the key by catch23 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Unfortunately most of the users of their new operating system will eventually be corporate users. And I'm fairly sure the company is not going to put up with re-activation every few days because a bunch of users in China are stealing their keys. So either the company will ditch the new operating system (bad for microsoft), deal with it (a serious pain for the company), or ask microsoft for a pre-activated key that cannot be reactivated (more trouble for microsoft but saves everyone's butt).

    12. Re:MS would owe at least the key by ednopantz · · Score: 5, Funny

      The slashbots are excited because this, *this* will be the thing that makes people go to desktop Linux.

      Nobody will upgrade to XP--er.... Nobody will upgrade to Vista because of activation.

      Yes! 199-, er...
      2003, er....

      2007 WILL BE THE YEAR FOR DESKTOP LINUX!!!

    13. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worse, he seems to be happy that the legitimate and paying Windows Vista customers are going to be at best confused and worst case screwed because some idiot stole their key.

      He's happy because it's funny, like Lucy once again yanking the football from Charlie Brown.

    14. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      And if that is true, then perhaps collecting enough valid keys could lead to discovering the actual 'validation function' and removing the need for brute force. Huh? They've got the validation function, that's how this works.

      The problem is that it's one-way and reversing it is mathematically hard, so it's easier just to try a scatter-gun approach.
    15. Re:MS would owe at least the key by tomknight · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I guess you don't work for a commercial software company then. It's theft. Theft is wrong. Fuck the thieves.

      --
      Oh arse
    16. Re:MS would owe at least the key by ergo98 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Once the customer uses the key, the previous user of it will eventually be required to re-activate.

      Once Vista sets the activated flag, does it actually check for revocation of activation at some prescribed interval?
    17. Re:MS would owe at least the key by des09 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Normally, I'd agree without comment, but this case does resemble theft more than most piracy in that the "victim" loses the ability to use the software they [purchased|licensed].

      --
      .sigless since 2003
    18. Re:MS would owe at least the key by ednopantz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The irony is that this is an example where IP theft *is* actually taking the original out of commission.

      Unlike duplicating an mp3, here the original copy is no longer usable. It isn't just making another copy for yourself and leaving the original functional.

      But the victim is MS or their customers, so it must be ok.

    19. Re:MS would owe at least the key by dberstein · · Score: 1

      There's no WAY MS won't be giving license keys to legitimate purchasers of XP (especially considering the vast majority are pre-activated shelf-delivered versions).

      It's Vista not XP ;)
    20. Re:MS would owe at least the key by GIL_Dude · · Score: 4, Informative

      Business users (at least large ones) won't be using Retail media on many machines. Since this is a crack for retail there would be no effect on people using MAK or KMS validations as the majority of corporations would be doing. (Yes, I know that for those few corps that want to use Ultimate on some of their machines this could be an issue because Ultimate requires retail activation). However for VL (Business and Enterprise versions) MAK and KMS would be unaffected.

    21. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Anonymous+Conrad · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is not a brute force hacker, but just a database of some key with a fancy interface on top that pretends to be calculation just just updates a progress bar. The database will release some key after some hours of "calculation". Users notice that the (enterprise?) key is accepted and tell it works. MS will notice some volume keys are used too often wan will block them at the next wga update (and the next service pack) No, that's not how new the volume license system works. There's two classes of volume license key for Vista:
      • Multiple Activation Key - will only work a limited number of times
      • Key Management Services - requires a local license server that maintains the count of keys used and communicates with Microsoft
      neither of which will work with your scheme.
    22. Re:MS would owe at least the key by DJCacophony · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, I believe it is every six months, as that is the interval by which Windows Vista retail must be re-activated anyways.

      --
      Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
    23. Re:MS would owe at least the key by orderb13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In which case there will be lawsuits and EULA's will be challenged and a companies responsibility to it's consumers will be better defined. Sounds like a win-win scenario here, as much as anything in regards to this can be called a win.

    24. Re:MS would owe at least the key by cswiger2005 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Once Vista sets the activated flag, does it actually check for revocation of activation at some prescribed interval?

      Why, yes. Rechecking the activation key against an updated list of revoked licenses takes place as part of the periodic updates to "Windows Validation" delivered via Windows Update. In practice under XP, this happens every month to every few months. Depending on your settings and whatever the future might bring, it might well be the case that machines will be checking for updates & possibly re-validating themselves every week.

      --
      "The human race's favorite method for being in control of the facts is to ignore them." -Celia Green
    25. Re:MS would owe at least the key by tomknight · · Score: 1

      Oh, note the Inquirer article that the original article links to:

      http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37 954
      "Vista activation crackers are criminals".

      Yup, it's on the web, so it must be true.

      --
      Oh arse
    26. Re:MS would owe at least the key by cyclop · · Score: 1

      Right, in this particular case it's much like theft. However it's MS that actively sets up a mechanism such as to make it theft, not the nature of software copying itself.

      Indeed who is copying Vista by using keys that are then inactivated are directly harming an innocent user just like them, so I agree in this case is an ethically disputable behaviour. But it's MS that built this kind of moral blackmail (with concrete and arguably sensible motivations, I agree).

      --
      -- Patent no.123456: A way to personalize /. comments with a sig attached to the end.
    27. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Lord+Ender · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Copyright infringement is not theft. It is immoral of you to deliberately misrepresent the issue by using loaded terminology.

      Using Microsoft's services, such as Windows Update, could be considered theft. But that is theft from Microsoft, not from consumers.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    28. Re:MS would owe at least the key by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So you imagine he probably works for a non-commercial software company?

      Regardless, its copyright infringement, not 'theft' and not 'piracy'. Its really quite simple, theft is when you physically take something that doesn't belong to you. Copyright infringement is, amongst other things, when you make a copy of something you aren't authorized too.

      In fact in this case the real issue isn't even copyright infringement. Suppose I use this keygen on legally purchased software. What laws are being broken?

      I didn't 'steal' your key, I happened to come up with the same number MS assigned to someone else independantly. Hell, I might have come up with the number before MS, which, if anything, would make it -my- intellectual property; and MS would be infringing my copyright by issueing you "my" key string.

      Which is of course absurd.

    29. Re:MS would owe at least the key by CmdrGravy · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm not sure boob is really typically British insult, I have a German friend with the same trouble who believes that the word ignoramus is in common enough use to pass himself off as a native although he is sadly mistaken in this.

      For future reference you could try using words like:

      Fuckwit, wanker, bastard, fuckhead, tosser, cunt, spanner, moron, dickhead or even shit for brains.

      For example:

      "The commentator on the Inquirer Web site is obviously a total fucking wanker. The fuckwit is cheering theft which is in its own right sleazy. Worse, the cretin seems to be happy that the legitimate and paying Windows Vista customers are going to be at best confused and worst case screwed because some idiot stole their key. What a fucking cock !"

      I must admit I probably have the same problem in my belief that most Scottish people curse each other by calling them sassenachs.

    30. Re:MS would owe at least the key by DJCacophony · · Score: 1

      How is a long, costly lawsuit a winning scenario?

      --
      Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
    31. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Library+Spoff · · Score: 1

      >a total boob

      If you`re wanting to sound british call him a `tit` - although a boob is a breast it`s not really
      an insult. You could of said he `made a boob` if he F`cked something up...

      --
      Acid House saves Souls
    32. Re:MS would owe at least the key by cloricus · · Score: 1

      Agreed.

      I really don't care how validation dies I just care that it does and doesn't destroy our rights in some other way. The same goes for DRM. I refuse to be treated like a criminal which is why I don't buy DVDs any more (MPAA asking me if I'd steal a movie when I've just paid for the damn thing!) and I avoid everything with DRM or activation (which is a lot easier to do than you'd think). Unfortunately as much as I use Mac and Linux at home I'm still forced to use Windows at work and I have to deal with the activation issues all the time (we are only a medium sized enterprise and system builder packs or preloaded pc's still need to be activated) even though we have a strict license requirement for all non FOSS software in use.

      I'm sick of watching consumer and general rights go out of the window - I don't have a use for them personally though others seemed to fight hard for them in the past so it must suck without them - and I'll be damned if I don't support some thing that tries to restore some thing we've lost.

      --
      I ate your fish.
    33. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What is peoples' problem that they can't undertand that "I did it for fun and experience" is a valid reason for an exploit?

    34. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I give up. Where's the "funny" part?

    35. Re:MS would owe at least the key by kosmosik · · Score: 1
    36. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 5, Informative

      Since it's a vbscript the code is wide open. Look for yourself, this is a legitimate brute forcer.

    37. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Sobrique · · Score: 1
      In general, copyright violation is _not_ theft. At least, not under UK law:

      The Theft Act 1968 Section1 (1) states that a person is guilty of theft if: he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.

      There are laws against violation of intellectual property rights, but calling it 'theft' is inaccurate.

    38. Re:MS would owe at least the key by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When it's Microsoft's long costly lawsuit?

      Sorry, couldn't resist.

      In the end though, this sort of corporate behavior is hugely annoying. Microsoft rose to the top partly because it looked the other way on unlicensed use of it's products, and now that it's the standard, it's trying to lock down. Well, the problem is, now there is a huge group of people who have a vested interest in using that software for free, and there is no way that they're going to beat them using a purely technical solution...Crackers are proving that on a daily basis.

      Smarter of them to leave things as they were.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    39. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Copyright infringement is not theft. It is immoral of you to deliberately misrepresent the issue by using loaded terminology.

      If you take something that doesn't belong to you (i.e., Vista), it is theft. The fact that the manufacturing cost is zero doesn't mean it's not theft. There is a price for the goods. You didn't pay the price for the goods, yet you have the goods. Therefore, you broke the buyer-seller agreement. Therefore, you stole it.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    40. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Sancho · · Score: 1

      A long, costly lawsuit is one more step towards the goal: getting rid of absurd activation schemes.

    41. Re:MS would owe at least the key by digitig · · Score: 1

      if it takes one second between attempts for billions of combinations, you're going to eventually be activating an obsolete OS. Mac users keep telling me that we already are. :-(
      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    42. Re:MS would owe at least the key by VJ42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How is a long, costly lawsuit a winning scenario? It's a winning scenario for the lawyers...
      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    43. Re:MS would owe at least the key by bendodge · · Score: 1

      Loosen it? No, no. What they should (and might) do is require the key to be entered from a special boot mode such as the following:

      1. Does not allow the user to execute code.
      2. It would run on a very simply, almost BIOS like specialized code base that does not execute win32 code, so if anybody did manage to execute code, it would have to be extremely specialized.
      3. Requires direct access to the hardware (no VM/visors).

      This would force anyone using this method to resort to a custom BIOS or a hardware device (like keyboard input from another PC). Having it use its own code base would require a lot of work, but might be worth it to MS.

      --
      The government can't save you.
    44. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Any customer who gets their key "stolen" by this program can just take it back - Vista comes with several activations on the same key. Once the customer uses the key, the previous user of it will eventually be required to re-activate."

      Someone else is using your activation key: Cancel or Allow?

    45. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Gerzel · · Score: 1

      Indeed. If there is one thing that MS does NOT want is a full court legal test of their EULA.

    46. Re:MS would owe at least the key by jZnat · · Score: 1

      I think this time around the "corporate" versions (e.g. Vista Business, Longhorn) use a different key authentication method that involves a locally-run key server. Perhaps they wouldn't be affected by this? As you know, corporate customers provide Microsoft with far more revenue than individual customers (aka home users) or even SOHO's.

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    47. Re:MS would owe at least the key by geekoid · · Score: 1

      eventually it will start costing them so much money that activation will go away, or become so draconian that it will be a problem for their business users.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    48. Re:MS would owe at least the key by prelelat · · Score: 1

      Copyright Infringement might not be theft but its illegal. Also when you steal a key thats not copyright infringement thats stealing because only one copy can be used, so you basically stole someones copy of it. circumventing software authentication is way different than what is being talked about in the article and I think you would find more people morally objecting to this kind of practice.

    49. Re:MS would owe at least the key by chrismgtis · · Score: 0

      >The slashbots are excited because this, *this* will be the thing that makes people go to desktop Linux. And they have been saying this for how many years now, and Linux is still where in the entire scheme of things? The same place it was 7 years ago with a few geeks singing it's praise and the rest of us sticking with what actually does the job.

    50. Re:MS would owe at least the key by d!rtyboy · · Score: 1

      You've obviously never posted in a Linux forum before.

      --
      ~ So sayeth the wise Alaundo
    51. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      a total boob (trying to use a British-sounding insult)

      ... and failing miserably. Calling someone a "boob" is pure American English - I've lived in both places and only heard it in the US.

      It sounds odd to British ears, since "boob" is only used as a childish prurient word for breast. A bit like calling someone a "titty" in the US.

    52. Re:MS would owe at least the key by mike2R · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unless you nicked a box set from a shop, then you haven't taken any goods - ie not theft, it's a civil offence of copyright infringment.

      I agree it's a nitpick and not a justification for copying Vista, but it is a llegitimate response to the "Copyright is Theft" slogan.

      --
      This sig all sigs devours
    53. Re:MS would owe at least the key by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      "I heard someone say they knew someone whose sister's brother has figured out a Vista activation hack..." Sigh.) Ha!
    54. Re:MS would owe at least the key by nharmon · · Score: 1

      Who said anything about taking? Someone gave it to them. Breaking a buyer-seller agreement is a breech of contract, a civil tort. Not a theft.

    55. Re:MS would owe at least the key by jZnat · · Score: 1

      Copyright violation isn't theft here in the US either. In fact, the word "theft" appears one (1) time in Title 17 of the USC, and it refers to an example of actual theft (for the interested, it refers to a supplier of phonographs (e.g. a record store) does not need to pay the licence fee or something in cases where the phonograph is stolen (this is where it mentions theft) or in the case of a fire, etc.).

      The only people who think that copyright infringement is theft is the MAFIAA and all those who have fallen for their propaganda.

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    56. Re:MS would owe at least the key by geekoid · · Score: 1



      There the 21st Century rebels. Except instead of breaking free, they're trying to prevent the shackles of corporate oppression from enslaving us all.

      They also show a weakness that can be exploitd by far worse.
      MS is, and has been, overlooking a huge opportunity here. If they wanted a secure system, they would write it in smaller moduals and use an OS architexture that allows maturing of the OS. That way they can approach each of these issues with the idea that the goal is perfection, not as 'good enough for now' fixes.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    57. Re:MS would owe at least the key by jeffasselin · · Score: 1

      the rest of us sticking with what actually does the job.


      That is, Macs.
      --
      If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
    58. Re:MS would owe at least the key by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Copyright Infringement might not be theft but its illegal. Also when you steal a key thats not copyright infringement thats stealing because only one copy can be used, so you basically stole someones copy of it.

      No, you didn't. By punching a number into a dialog box you don't take their key. Microsoft, in fact, takes away their right to use their purchased software.

      The system is stupid and broken. The fact that I can go read a number off your PC, then come home and use it to invalidate your Windows installation is an example of Windows being broken as designed.

      Unless I come into your house and remove the sticker from your computer, no theft is occurring.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    59. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you take something that doesn't belong to you (i.e., Vista), it is theft.
      Copyright infringers don't take things, they copy them. So even by your uninformed definition, it is not theft. It is what it is: copyright infringement. If it were theft, wouldn't need special laws and punishments that deal with copyright infringement.

      Therefore, you broke the buyer-seller agreement. Therefore, you stole it.

      If anything, that would be failure to abide by a contract (assuming the EULA is a valid contract, which is a big if). Once again, that is not theft, and not even a criminal infraction, but a civil one.

      Really, you ought to learn at least the basics of the law before you make your sanctimonious proclamations.

    60. Re:MS would owe at least the key by brouski · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For anyone else interested in a primer to good British swearing, watch some cooking shows with Gordon Ramsay. He pretty much runs the gamut.

      --
      Proud member of the American Non Sequitur Society. We might not make much sense, but boy do we love pizza!
    61. Re:MS would owe at least the key by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The irony is that this is an example where IP theft *is* actually taking the original out of commission.

      The irony is that you think violations of IP is theft.

      The person who brute force discovers and uses someone else's code is not the one causing their Copy of Windows to be invalidated. Microsoft is doing that.

      This is a very important distinction.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    62. Re:MS would owe at least the key by AlHunt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why, yes. Rechecking the activation key against an updated list of revoked licenses takes place as part of the periodic updates to "Windows Validation" delivered via Windows Update.

      I am *so* glad Linux has evolved to the point it is today. I still have an XP partition and probably will for a while, but why MS expects people to keep putting up with this "phone home" behavior is beyond me. XP still handles ACPI better than Linux, but I'm happy to trade off a little convenience for control of my own machine.
      --
      1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.
    63. Re:MS would owe at least the key by JackMeyhoff · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Every 6 months I have to explain myself and prove my innocense? I'm glad I wont be purchasing Fista. Do OEM keys need activating? On previous Windows editions they did not require activation as that would piss off OEM customers no end.

      --
      http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
    64. Re:MS would owe at least the key by ednopantz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The irony is that you think violations of IP is theft.
      Not so much ironic as subscribing to a different value system.

      Ironic would be someone who pirates windows freaking out because somebody violated the GPL. Which happens all the time here.

      The person who brute force discovers and uses someone else's code is not the one causing their Copy of Windows to be invalidated. Microsoft is doing that.
      This is a very important distinction.
      .

      Exactly, like when I used your card number to order all that stuff. It wasn't me who took the money from your account, it was the bank. I just typed in some numbers. Why are you so upset? Credit Card numbers are information and information wants to be free. How could anyone be upset about that?

    65. Re:MS would owe at least the key by clontzman · · Score: 0, Redundant

      No, it's theft. If you guess at the barcode for a Ticketmaster "print at home" ticket to successfully hijack one I purchased and use it to get into the show before I can scan mine in, you've stolen my ticket. How's this any different?

    66. Re:MS would owe at least the key by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Zonk wtf? Microsoft telling you, "Well you got your key lost due to our protection not being awesome and perfect," is like McDonalds telling you, "FUCK OFF. I DON'T CARE IF YOU ORDERED A CHEESEBURGER, I DON'T FEEL LIKE MAKING IT, HERE'S SOME NUGGETS." You won't be there for long. Do you honestly think MS is that stupid? They have business sense at least.. barely....

    67. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Bandman · · Score: 1

      And logically, bouncing someone off a teeter totter isn't your fault, it's gravity's.

    68. Re:MS would owe at least the key by DeadChobi · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Because it is a distinction which allows you to rest easy at night knowing that when you steal someone else's license keys, it's not your actions that caused their problems.

      Yeah, it's really Microsoft's fault that the pirates' resort to brute forcing keys. Not the pirates' responsibility at all because it wouldn't be a problem if there wasn't any protection whatsoever.

      --
      SRSLY.
    69. Re:MS would owe at least the key by PPGMD · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Rechecking the activation key against an updated list of revoked licenses takes place as part of the periodic updates to "Windows Validation" delivered via Windows Update. In practice under XP, this happens every month to every few months.

      The only time that Windows XP checks to see if the key is valid is if you go through WGA. Nothing forces you to go through WGA, you can still apply the patches manually.

      I still don't understand why people get upset with a company periodically checking to see if your install is valid. They have been doing it for years with Business Software. Now because of increasing amounts of piracy companies like Microsoft who make most of their money from the OS itself have to do it for their software.

      And don't tell me that piracy isn't out of hand. On here people brag like they achieved some victory against Microsoft when they pirate Windows. Go to any Asian country, or heck even China Town and you will see racks of pirated software. Piracy is all around us.

      Microsoft's attempt to curb it aren't quite as annoying as most people think. You simply forget for every whore story there are 100 or more people that had no issue, the people that speak up are the ones that had issues with the software. Even then I doubt the claims made by many, I found in the fews cases where I had a with activation a 5-10 minutes phone call to Microsoft's activation line fixed things right up.

      I am sure that I am going to take a hit for this, but Vista isn't the pile of evil that people make it out to be. I personally find it a pretty good OS, though it will be 6 months to a year before I switch. Driver companies and software companies need to release updates so things work smoothly.

    70. Re:MS would owe at least the key by thepotoo · · Score: 1

      You've obviously never posted in a Linux forum before.

      Apparently, you haven't either. The correct phrase is: you must be new here...

      --
      Obligatory Soundbite Catchphrase
    71. Re:MS would owe at least the key by volvo64 · · Score: 2, Funny
      | Yes, I believe it is every six months, as that is the interval by which Windows Vista retail must be re-activated anyways.

      Don't you mean re-installed?

    72. Re:MS would owe at least the key by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      Unless you nicked a box set from a shop, then you haven't taken any goods - ie not theft, it's a civil offence of copyright infringment.

      Except that if I obtained someone's key by whatever means, I could easily deprive a legitimate purchaser of the ability to use the product.

      Maybe not theft under the law, but the law isn't necessarily made up with common sense in mind.

      I'm no fan of Windows (and for that reason I don't choose to use it) but accepting the use of a key you haven't paid for, knowing that it might hurt someone else, is tacky.

      If you don't want to pay for Vista (or any other incarnation of Windows) then don't use it. After all, nobody can say there are no alternatives.

    73. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Barryke · · Score: 1

      Problem would arrise when it involves legit customers who have a OEM/volume licence. (like Dell or HP)

      These customers must contact OEM vendor, and do not (!) receive any service from Microsoft. Been there myself (Acer system with WMCE2005) and it sucks, they wouldn't help me!
      Especially the case with WMCE2003 and ~2005, i assume same procedure for WV.

      --
      Hivemind harvest in progress..
    74. Re:MS would owe at least the key by tomknight · · Score: 1
      You might have noted the page I linked to:

      "The originator of the crack is on record as saying, "Under no circumstances should anyone sell the key that they generate. I do not support Piracy, this was simply an experiment in which i used to practice my vbscripting. This was just for fun and was a complete accident! sorry for cracking your beautiful operating system BILL GATES." Yeah, right. No one's going to use those keys, are they? That's like putting a bottle of whisky in front of an alcoholic and telling him not to touch it." While you're learning to read you might want to learn to write, as your post barely made sense.

      --
      Oh arse
    75. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or they could NOT loosen up activation, and it would be a hindrance to all legitimate users. That's exactly what I'm hoping for.

      - Apple
    76. Re:MS would owe at least the key by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      I wonder about the assumptions underlying all this talk of a pirate activation trampling on someone's legit key. Microsoft cannot know beforehand how many copies they will sell. No matter how Microsoft does it, there are going to be unused keys. Unused keys could belong to copies sitting on a store shelf, or be planned for use in another production run when current runs sell out, or be set aside by Microsoft for use when customers have activation problems. Unused keys could belong to a customer who for some reason used a different key, or perhaps decided to return the purchase for a refund and was denied (opened software cannot be returned, etc.) so threw the box, CD and all, into a closet or the trash. Or the legit copy could've been loaded on a computer that died. And of course there are site or volume licensing sorts of keys which break the one key per computer assumption. And there's legal finagling, such as, installing Windows several times into several virtual machines all on only one real machine. I'm sure that does count, but should it?

      And the key conflict can only happen if the copies of Windows can contact MS. Otherwise, why couldn't there be 2 or more copies out there using the same key, with no problem?

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    77. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Barryke · · Score: 1

      Sorry for my bad english, its friday.

      --
      Hivemind harvest in progress..
    78. Re:MS would owe at least the key by xtracto · · Score: 1
      Of course this will be resolved by downloading the illegal "enhanced" copy. I had to do this with my Windows XP. My notebook's hard disk went dead and as I am in UK and bought my machine in Mexico the people from HP told me they COULD NOT sent me a restore CD (the one that has Windows XP) even if I wished to pay them. The representative told me (actual quote):

      Bob
      Xtracto, I am afraid to say that the recovery discs are not available in UK.
      Bob
      I am really sorry.
      Bob
      The only way is to purchase a retail version.
      Xtracto -
      But then what with the serial number ?
      Bob
      We can check the availability of the discs with the serail number in our database.
      Bob
      It is available only in mexico, where you've purchased the notebook.
      Xtracto -
      ooh alright, so I would need to buy it in Mexico
      Xtracto -
      Do I have to give you my XP serial number?
      Bob
      Yes, i am really sorry for the inconvenience.
      Bob
      No need for that, the only thing is HP doesn't ship the recovery discs world wide.
      Xtracto -
      well, nevermind.
      Xtracto -
      Thank you anway! Can you believe this shit? so what I did was to download the OUTSTANDING Windows Unatended Edition and I got mesmerized with it, it is 300% better than the standard windows Install...

      Comparing that software (windowsue) against the standard windows XP, I laugh very loud when I read the companies warnings about downloading "illegal" copies saying they provide less functionality and they are dangerous and what not...

      The same thing will happen win Vista, and that (WindowsUE and others) are the direct result of all the nags Microsoft (and other companies) keep adding to their software, and the restrictions (I completely and utterly REFUSE to pay £100 for a new retail copy of Windows...)
      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    79. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Communomancer · · Score: 1

      Exactly, like when I used your card number to order all that stuff. It wasn't me who took the money from your account, it was the bank. I just typed in some numbers. Why are you so upset? Credit Card numbers are information and information wants to be free. How could anyone be upset about that? IANAL, but I'm fairly certain that you've described fraud above, not theft.

      --
      "UNIX" is never having to say you're sorry.
    80. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    81. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1
      Spot on.

      Since the person using the wrongly-obtained validation key is aware that use of it will deny the rightful owner of it access, it is morally equivalent to theft.

      I'd just make one change to your post:

      Not so much ironic as subscribing to a different value system.

      Should be: Not so much ironic as subscribing to a value system not based purely on personal gain and convenience.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    82. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The vast majority of users see no real alternative to windows so they'd be forced to continue using it in some form. It might hurt their upgrade business though.

    83. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Derosian · · Score: 1

      Windows is my video game console for life.

    84. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Nogami_Saeko · · Score: 1

      This is only for business/corporate versions which require a Vista license server.

      When home/ultimate/media whatever is activated, it will stay activated.

      --
      "Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
    85. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the victim is MS or their customers, so it must be ok.


      Actually, yes, that's pretty much how I feel about this. You buy into and become part of a system that fucks people over, you get fucked over, and there's no one to blame but yourself.
    86. Re:MS would owe at least the key by PPH · · Score: 1, Informative

      Every 6 months I have to explain myself and prove my innocense?

      In Soviet Russia .... oh never mind.
      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    87. Re:MS would owe at least the key by ijakings · · Score: 0, Troll

      6 months?! Jesus thats a long amount of time. Im lucky if my version of XP remains un self destructed for 6 weeks. Id hate to think how quick vista will break itself. Pretty soon you wont get a disk anymore, windows will have just destroyed itself before you get anywhere near it.

    88. Re:MS would owe at least the key by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      Microsoft expects people to put up with the phoning home of their OS because they do put up with it. You are aware that you have to be technologically competent to be aware that the phoning home is even going on aren't you?

      What the heck are you afraid of anyway? Its not like Microsoft is going to shut down your computer just for the heck of it.

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    89. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Danga · · Score: 2, Interesting

      but why MS expects people to keep putting up with this "phone home" behavior is beyond me... but I'm happy to trade off a little convenience for control of my own machine.

      MS phoning home to check if the OS is pirated does not seem like some huge big deal to me. I mean if they have a list of KNOWN pirated keys then it is their right to be able to check for those keys if you want to be able to access the windows update webpage (which is one place I think the validation occurs but I could be wrong). It isn't really losing control either because I think it asks you before it does the checking, I know last night on my laptop a thing popped up asking to click through to validate and it was painless. If you call that losing control you are crazy IMO. If you are that paranoid then either don't install Windows in the first place, setup your firewall to block everything to Redmond, or don't connect the machine to the internet.

      Is the reason you don't want to "put up with this phone home behavior" because your copy of Windows is pirated?

      I am *so* glad Linux has evolved to the point it is today.
      Linux definitely has gotten better over the years but for me the biggest reason keeping me using Windows and not going Linux exlusively is games and the ease of installing new hardware. I have almost never had a problem installing new hardware on Windows XP Pro which I can't say the same thing for linux. Getting some things to work on linux is just a huge headache. My latest problem with linux was last month when I decided to download the latest Fedora ISO to install on an old P3 500 box I had sitting in the closet. Guess what? It couldn't even get more than about 20 seconds into the installation process! It got to a certain point checking the hardware if I remember correctly and just froze. I thought about digging up my old Red Hat discs I have somewhere that I have installed on the same machine sometime in the past but then ran out of time. Linux isn't to the point yet where I can dump Windows completely, it has A LOT of work left.

      --
      Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
    90. Re:MS would owe at least the key by starX · · Score: 1

      Also, telling their customers to sod off would be another way of telling them to download the brute force Vista key generator, and they have to know that. They also must know that any legal action against customers who did turn to piracy after being told that they would not be issued legitimate keys would prove futile: MS doesn't have a very user-friendly reputation as it is, and I can't think of a judge that would accept that the product key was stolen before it was sold, and that MS has no responsibility to their customers.

    91. Re:MS would owe at least the key by rjstegbauer · · Score: 1


      ROTFLMAO.

      Best Sig All Month.

      Thanks!

    92. Re:MS would owe at least the key by aminorex · · Score: 1

      Not if they use the Vista activation cracker.

      Kantian ethics *require* that *everyone* use the Vista cracker, because otherwise people will get hurt.
      Not to use it is immoral.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    93. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Taelron · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not according to Microsoft... According to their speakers at the MS Vista launch event, even the Home and Ultimate versions need to call Microsoft every 180 days to verify their key.

      The buisness users can purchase an "Activation server" they maintain in house and can configure their workstations to call it to verify they have legit keys. The Activation server in house still has to call Microsoft every 180 days to verify all the license information it has.

      The in house Activation server came about because of Government and Private organizations that want to have unconnected secured networks. Though the "Activation Server" needing to call MS every few months can result in a "potential breach" or extra wasted IT staff hours as you call the phone number to manually activate again...

      Another option you have, though Microsoft claims that they did not enable it in Vista, as Volume License keys will be used in house only and no longer shipped out to customers, are the MAK license options in their Volume license 2.0 program. But as I said, MS claimed at their launch day event they will not be shipping any such versions of Vista...

      http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/plan /faq.mspx

    94. Re:MS would owe at least the key by mike2R · · Score: 1

      Except that if I obtained someone's key by whatever means, I could easily deprive a legitimate purchaser of the ability to use the product.

      That would be more an effect of overzealous Microsoft protection mechanisms IMO, and I seriously doubt Microsoft would allow a situation like that to occur.

      I'm not attacking Microsoft's right to charge for their software, but I've been forced to listen to "Copying is Theft!" too many times to believe the fact that it isn't is irrelevant. "Copying is sometimes morally equivalent to theft, but not always!" would be more reasonable I think.

      I agree it is no justification for piracy, but I also believe the distinction is important: copyright is civil law designed to achieve certain beneficial ends - ie incentivising creators. Theft is a criminal offense because it is considered always harmful and morally wrong. Copyright infringement is sometimes morally equivalent to theft, but by no means always. By accepting the meme that copying is theft, we forget that the purpose of copyright law is to strike a balance, rather than eliminate copying.

      Using this distinction to justify pirating Vista doesn't work, but it doesn't mean the distinction isn't important.

      --
      This sig all sigs devours
    95. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Bendy+Chief · · Score: 1

      For what it's worth, that is actually what happened with me.

      I bought a new desktop recently, and with that cleared up some of my lingering frustrations about Linux's ACPI support. I had played around with Ubuntu from time to time, mostly in VMs; actually, I have been poking away with Linux intermittently since high school.

      After college, which had 2 or 3 courses on Unix/POSIX, I felt truly prepared to use Linux. Actually, I might not have been looking hard enough, but a comprehensive online crash-course in POSIX and just how Linux works in contrast to Windows would have been sufficient; a large chunk of the college courses were on VI, sendmail, BIND and other stuff not essential to desktop Linux.

      Anyway, with my powerful new desktop kicking around, I felt like giving Vista a try, but then I read about Vista's draconian activation policies, HDCP, and other dodgey elements. Regardless of whether these would really cost me time, it's still unpleasant (to me at least) to think that a company has that level of control over what I do with my computer. So instead I switched to Ubuntu 6.10 Edgy, and got started with the growing pains. Although there were a few snags to work out, esp. with gaming through ZSNES and MAME, things have worked out well. I am now running Beryl window manager, which is absolutely beautiful and enhances productivity.

      I realize there are a lot of "buts" with my story, and I am an IT professional, but my switch to Linux has been pretty smooth, and I am now fairly confident that there is nothing I could do with Vista that I can't with Linux. I feel a lot better about my computer freedoms, too.

    96. Re:MS would owe at least the key by dimeglio · · Score: 1

      I'm not a MS fanboy but I do have XP on one system. I don't remember re-installing it since I've set it up on that PC (at least one year ago). And yes, it gets updates, gets played on and all that stuff. I think MS would like to know what you do to your XP system to kill it every 6 weeks.

      --
      Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
    97. Re:MS would owe at least the key by rarwes · · Score: 1

      Probably. As long as you don't need DirectX.

    98. Re:MS would owe at least the key by chrismgtis · · Score: 0

      Of course you mean the job of playing music, word processing and editing video? Leave the rest to a better OS.

    99. Re:MS would owe at least the key by PitaBred · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So wait... Microsoft is requiring you to run a server just to run their fucking operating system? It adds NO value whatsoever to the company using it, yet takes their electricity, time and resources to maintain? Does that sound absolutely asinine to ANYONE else? Wouldn't a CTO/CIO be slightly annoyed at having to allocate extra resources just to run an operating system whose only real function is to allow the real work to get done?

    100. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 1

      You don't understand what I was trying to say- I'm saying that making a brute forcer "to practice my vbscripting" is a perfectly valid reason. The writer of the page you linked to is criticizing that mindset ("yeah, right") but he needs to realize that's basically the hacker ethic and a lot of people would sympathize with the guy who made the brute forcer, not the critical writer of the article.

    101. Re:MS would owe at least the key by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Informative

      Some necessary things DO require WGA. I just installed a patch to make my work laptop hibernate correctly, because I recently upgraded it to 2GB of RAM. I had to go through the WGA check on their web page to download that patch. It's ONLY "security" related patches that are sent out regardless of WGA status.

    102. Re:MS would owe at least the key by deathy_epl+ccs · · Score: 3, Informative

      So wait... Microsoft is requiring you to run a server just to run their fucking operating system? It adds NO value whatsoever to the company using it, yet takes their electricity, time and resources to maintain? Does that sound absolutely asinine to ANYONE else? Wouldn't a CTO/CIO be slightly annoyed at having to allocate extra resources just to run an operating system whose only real function is to allow the real work to get done?

      Your assumption here seems to stand on rather shaky ground, though... I'm sure that you can run more services than just the authentication mechanism - I would expect that you'd probably want to run the license authentication service on your domain controller or something similar, unless you're in a really gigantic shop.

    103. Re:MS would owe at least the key by larytet · · Score: 1
      XP still handles ACPI better than Linux

      And WiFi and dual screen mode are another major problems. Generally laptop support still lacks lot. But I have to mention, that two of my newer laptops arrived with OEM (?) Windows XP tailored/customized for the specific hardware. I would call these Windows XPs - distributions, because they are rather different. They come with different free software packages, different display managers, CD/DVD burning software, etc.

    104. Re:MS would owe at least the key by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Except many Windows downloads now require you validation to download manually.

      Maybe not patches, yet, but you can be sure it's on their radar.

    105. Re:MS would owe at least the key by webheaded · · Score: 1

      I think the more pertinent thing here though is that they have to put the time and resources into getting the server running and then more resources to keep it running (i.e. maintainence). It's a real pain in the ass for something like that if you're in a REAL corporate environment and have 100's or even thousands of machines running Vista, and I know if I was the system admin I wouldn't want to dick with it...I'd stick with XP and tell them to shove Vista up their asses if that was the case...and I'm not even one of the tinfoil hat anti-MS crowd...I just think that is a ridiculous waste of time.

      --
      "Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
    106. Re:MS would owe at least the key by vux984 · · Score: 1

      And the key conflict can only happen if the copies of Windows can contact MS. Otherwise, why couldn't there be 2 or more copies out there using the same key, with no problem?

      Actually, even copies that cannot 'contact' MS -must- be activated, by phone if necessary.

      However, yeah, multiple copies of windows can use the same key. I have an xp box that I installed on 2 different computers, when the first one died I installed XP onto the 2nd. Activation went through without a problem. My understanding is that, with XP, at least, keys that aren't blacklisted, CAN be re-used on different hardware provided there is a enough of a time lapse between uses.

      At least that's been my experience and I've done it a couple times now, both with XP and 2003 server.

      Note that my keys are retail boxed though, not OEM. I wouldn't be surprised if MS is more relaxed with retail keys, given that their legit owners actually have license to transfer the OS, and MS likely expects them to do so from time to time. Unlike OEMs.

      I don't know what the rules with Vista are.

    107. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just because it isn't federal law, that doesn't mean it isn't illegal. And just because you aren't taking physical property, that doesn't mean it isn't theft. Look into your state's laws regarding Theft of Services. Whether or not using an illegitimate Windows key falls under theft of services may be debatable, but the oft-repeated statement that "it isn't theft if the other person doesn't lose a physical object" is not true in all states.

    108. Re:MS would owe at least the key by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      Well, in this particular case, stealing a key so you can run an illegal copy when you know it prevents someone from running the OS they've purchased a license to is plain old fashion theft. So the typical "it doesn't deny the owner use" excuse doesn't apply.

    109. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      Wow. You would fail out of law school so quickly you wouldn't know what hit you.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    110. Re:MS would owe at least the key by dangitman · · Score: 1
      What is this "better OS" that you speak of? If you mean Windows, as far as I can tell, it's for wasting time and keeping helpdesk staff employed. I guess it's also a good excuse for low productivity. When your boss asks you why you haven't got anything done this month, you can just point to Windows.

      However, some of us actually like to get work done and enjoy our jobs.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    111. Re:MS would owe at least the key by deathy_epl+ccs · · Score: 4, Informative

      How is it any different than needing a corporate license server for Autocad, or Rational, or any of the other software commonly licensed this way on the corporate level? It's not like these license servers are terribly difficult to maintain.

      I think you imagine the maintenance to be a lot harder than it really is. Maintaining a single license server has, in my experience, been easier than maintaining hundreds of keys individually.

    112. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      If you guess at the barcode for a Ticketmaster "print at home" ticket to successfully hijack one I purchased and use it to get into the show before I can scan mine in, you've stolen my ticket.

      Different situation entirely. There are a physically-limited number of seats available at a concert. If someone fraudulently deprives you of your seat, that's theft. There is no physical limit to the number of copies of Windows running simultaneously, therefore, no theft.
      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    113. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you had the door closed while you posted that.

      Now go wash your hands.

    114. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      using fucking in every sentence seems to be more an american thing. Also "sleazy" sounds a bit American too. You should probably have said he is talking bollocks. The use of the word "cock" seems to be fairly current though, especially amongst BBC motoring presenters.

    115. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Skater · · Score: 1

      Guess what? It couldn't even get more than about 20 seconds into the installation process! It got to a certain point checking the hardware if I remember correctly and just froze. I thought about digging up my old Red Hat discs I have somewhere that I have installed on the same machine sometime in the past but then ran out of time. Linux isn't to the point yet where I can dump Windows completely, it has A LOT of work left. Have you ever tried to install Windows?

      When I installed XP on this machine (which runs Linux almost exclusively; I use Windows for those days when I telework, mainly), I had a miserable time. Far worse than ANY Linux installation I've ever done, and I've been using Slackware since its 3.x days. It kept writing some file to a bad sector or something on my hard drive, then the installer would crash and couldn't recover. So I formatted the drive to NTFS, only to find that the installer demands it to be FAT32. I spent HOURS fighting with it before I finally figured out that the right sequence of events was to format the drive to FAT32, install or copy something on it (I don't recall exactly what I had to do), then do the Windows XP installation...wherein the drive was converted to NTFS. Everyone likes to complain about how hard Linux can be to install, but I'd say their installer is better than Windows, because the Linux distributions *KNOW* people are going to be installing it themselves, not buying computers with it preinstalled.

      Yes, I do occasionally have headaches getting hardware to work under Linux. But my experience has been that once I do get it working, I'm done - it simply keeps on working and I never have to worry about it again.
    116. Re:MS would owe at least the key by prelelat · · Score: 1

      Even if there was an unlimited number of CD-Keys that could be produced, its still stealing. Thats like saying because there is an unlimited number of seats in a theater its not stealing to take someones seat whos paid is still stealing.

    117. Re:MS would owe at least the key by PitaBred · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But those programs you listed actually DO something tangible contributing to the business, rather than just being there to enable OTHER programs to work. If AutoCAD license were essentially forced on companies, then I'd be upset in the same way. But now to just get basic "turn my computer on and use it to run other programs" functionality, you now need yet another service (or perhaps entire server) eating up network bandwidth and administration resources, because they're the de-facto standard due to monopolistic tendencies?

    118. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      If you were on Slashdot, you'd rant and rave about how you weren't going to pay to see the concert so the band never lost a sale, that you hadn't physically taken anything from anyone, it was all "just coincidence", that any damage was Ticketmaster's fault for forbidding access to their legitimate customer (through your actions), and that the vast majority of the songs you listened to at the concert were about Linux ISOs, anyway.

    119. Re:MS would owe at least the key by JackMeyhoff · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Can you imagine the store demanding you go to them or call them and show them your receipt of the products you bought from them? No, I cant imagine that happening ether but this is the way software companies expects you to behave.

      --
      http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
    120. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Cocoshimmy · · Score: 1

      Guessing a credit card number then making purchases is fraud just as much as guessing product keys then activating a product of windows constitutes fraud. Either way you are taking something from someone else (funds from the credit card and a software license).

    121. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Cocoshimmy · · Score: 1

      I should add, not only are they taking something from someone else, but they are using false pretenses to do so.

    122. Re:MS would owe at least the key by ergo98 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now because of increasing amounts of piracy companies like Microsoft who make most of their money from the OS itself have to do it for their software.

      Increasing amounts of piracy?

      I don't buy it.

      Here's an academic exercise: Calculate Microsoft's marketshare over the past 15 years, and the relative size of the market each year. Compare that with Microsoft's operating system gross revenue. I haven't actually done this myself, but I'm very confident in the result of such an analysis.

      What you're going to find is that the gross revenue has been grossly outpacing actual deployed copies.

      Piracy isn't increasing at all — in fact I'd say the opposite, and point out that 10 years ago everyone and their brother ran a pirate version of Windows &| DOS, and among small businesses the license compliance was atrocious. Now I don't know a single person who didn't pay the Microsoft tax when they bought a PC, and almost no-one actually buys retail or does upgrades. Among small businesses, paranoia about the jackboot-squadrons has made casual piracy a huge no no — however the demand for Microsoft to pump up the revenue in a period when customers have largely lost interest is making them monetize a previously unexploited market.

      1. Look the other way, with limited or no protections
      2. Gain massive marketshare because few actually paid hundreds for Windows 3.11 et all
      3. Wait, while emitting involuntary evil cackling
      4. Start enabling WGA, Activation, and legal threats to monetize marketshare.
      5. Even bigger profit, or at least something to make up the difference when other channels start declining
    123. Re:MS would owe at least the key by deathy_epl+ccs · · Score: 1

      You are way too focused on the political issue, and completely ignoring what I say.

      If it's anything like every other licensing mechanism, then it is easier to maintain than an entire sheaf of licenses for a large volume of machines.

    124. Re:MS would owe at least the key by nine-times · · Score: 1

      In which case, people stop using Windows, forcing Microsoft to change their ways or go out of business. Again, it's a positive result.

    125. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Threni · · Score: 1

      > why MS expects people to keep putting up with this "phone home" behavior is beyond me.

      Because we don't give a shit? I paid for Windows, and part of the deal is that it sends a few tiny packets of information occasionally to check it's legit. It doesn't cost me anything, so why should I care?

    126. Re:MS would owe at least the key by mushadv · · Score: 1

      I love these. A great joy is derived from verifying one of the few constants in my life: the Windows/Linux installation post. It generally goes something like this:

      [broad, sweeping generalization about why Linux will never be "ready for the desktop" or why Windows is harder to install]

      [multi-paragraph anecdote]

      [conclusion stating either "I don't want to modify config files just to get things to work" or "Windows detected approximately dick"]

      I love seeing those back-to-back, each trying to top the last. "Yeah? Well, I had to rape a bear to prove to Windows XP SP2 that I had the real copy! M$ sux!" "Oh really? Not only did I have to shovel twice as many babies into my furnace/power supply to keep my computer running with Ubuntu on it, I had to compile a driver! Grandma can't do that!" Keep it up, you guys! You're one of the reasons I stick around.

    127. Re:MS would owe at least the key by mikeb · · Score: 1

      total boob? Please: 'complete prat' is closer to what you are looking for. You could opt for the shorter 'twat', both of which are fine until you discover what they actually mean in the vernacular.

      Cheers!

      Mike

    128. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1

      If someone fraudulently deprives you of your seat, that's theft.

      No, that's not theft - that's fraud.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    129. Re:MS would owe at least the key by ADRA · · Score: 1

      I can't justify piracy as a solution but lets look at how some people interpret this:

      Point (1)
      1. Windows retail would cost a 1/3 of the cost of the whole computer
      2. Windows OEM forces a user to buy a new computer

      So if you want a current generation supported operating system, you pay a couple hundred dollars for an upgrade or half a grand for a new PC. There is no -low cost- solution introduced. This is business economy maximizes hardware manufacturers' and Microsoft's profits.

      Point (2)
      Some people hate that the software that they -have- to run for work, business, etc.. is locked into one corporation that in some cases they hate. Personally, I will never buy a Microsoft product again because of their predatory business ethics but instead of pirating I just find complete alternatives. Some people will 'screw Microsoft' by pirating their software.

      I don't consider pirating putting the screws to MS at all. I think it actually helps maintain their monopoly by keeping people in their umbrella of influence.

      --
      Bye!
    130. Re:MS would owe at least the key by MartinG · · Score: 1

      Okay, so the copy of windows belongs to person A.
      Person B finds a way to "steal" it by fooling the validation system.
      Person A loses out.

      Now consider a bank account.

      Person A has money in their account.
      Person B finds a way to steal it by fooling the bank.
      Who loses out?

      It's generally not person A because the bank is responsible for their own security and so should cover it themselves.

      Microsoft is the gatekeeper of their license key system and has a responsibility to make sure person A _never_ loses _anything_
      If person B cheats the system then Microsoft should cover it themselves and go after person B.

      What makes this worse is that the whole license key scheme is only needed to prop up Microsofts outdated business model and doesn't benefit customers at all. It's entirely self serving. In the bank scenario clearly the customer cares if someone else takes their cash. The security there is because customers demand and require it.

      --
      -- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz .@adgimnoprstu
    131. Re:MS would owe at least the key by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      I'm focused on the political issue because it's like someone taking the only road between points A and B, and then randomly applying a toll to it. I understand what you're saying is that it's easier, but it's also HARDER than the previous setups which required no management, or VLK management, etc. Artificial hurdles are not a welcome thing, whether or not they're easier than alternative artificial hurdles.

    132. Re:MS would owe at least the key by deathy_epl+ccs · · Score: 1

      You've never had to maintain an XP network, have you?

      This is not harder than the previous way of doing things.

      Wanna hate Vista, hate it for what's wrong with it... I do. However, I am willing to come right out and say that this particular piece is something they did right.

      Makes ya wonder who they bought it from. heheheheh

    133. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Please, PLEASE repeat after me:

      I have not nor I am ever likely to BUY/PURCHASE software from Microsoft. I have purchased/bought a LICENSE to use Microsoft software under THEIR terms.

      Essentially, you have RENTED an item and person/entity is checking to make sure you are using it in accordance with applicable laws and within the terms of the license/rental agreement you accepted.

    134. Re:MS would owe at least the key by JackMeyhoff · · Score: 1

      Yes and remember that when you turn on your computer, you have licensed the right to use their technology but you dont own it. You have rented taht technology.

      --
      http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
    135. Re:MS would owe at least the key by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      Because we don't give a shit? I paid for Windows, and part of the deal is that it sends a few tiny packets of information occasionally to check it's legit. It doesn't cost me anything, so why should I care?

      So you don't own the right to use the software -- you've rented it for a period of time to be determined by Microsoft.

      Doesn't that bother you?

      I hate schemes like that purely because it adds one additional risk factor: If I've bought your software, I don't want company-wide bullshit at some indetermined time because some kid random-generates numbers, or a Microsoft services has a fault, etc.
    136. Re:MS would owe at least the key by clontzman · · Score: 1

      Okay, let's pretend the concert isn't sold out and there are still seats available. If you take my ticket, I still can't get in. You have stolen what I purchased -- the right to attend the concert.

    137. Re:MS would owe at least the key by PPGMD · · Score: 1
      Piracy isn't increasing at all -- in fact I'd say the opposite, and point out that 10 years ago everyone and their brother ran a pirate version of Windows &| DOS, and among small businesses the license compliance was atrocious. Now I don't know a single person who didn't pay the Microsoft tax when they bought a PC, and almost no-one actually buys retail or does upgrades. Among small businesses, paranoia about the jackboot-squadrons has made casual piracy a huge no no

      You just made my point, it's working. Casual piracy is going down, steps like the new activation procedures on Enterprise CD keys, and increased prevention of COA reuses are lowering the amount are aimed at lowering what really cuts into Microsoft's bottom line, organized pirates that sell pirated software as genuine.

    138. Re:MS would owe at least the key by jZnat · · Score: 1

      Apparently, you can get away with shit like that when you have a monopoly...

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    139. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Torvaun · · Score: 1

      So, if I surreptitiously switch the blanks in a movie gun for live rounds, the guy who pulls the trigger on set is the murderer, not me?

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    140. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It stands to reason that the pirate is actually guilty of two things. An IP violation against Microsoft, and theft (or fraud, or whatever -- but not an IP violation) against the eventual purchaser of the key.

    141. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not every software company, mind you. Registration isn't required for MacOS X.

      Apple actually values its customers. Bill and his bag of monopoly money don't.

    142. Re:MS would owe at least the key by nullforce · · Score: 1

      Windows Vista Enterprise edition, at least the MSDN distributed version, uses VA 2.0/MAK. It is limited to 15 activations.

    143. Re:MS would owe at least the key by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The irony is that you think violations of IP is theft.
      Not so much ironic as subscribing to a different value system.

      Unless you subscribe to a different dictionary, this is really quite irrelevant. Copyright infringement is not theft. It is copyright infringement. We have a whole separate area of law to address it specifically because they are not the same thing.

      Ironic would be someone who pirates windows freaking out because somebody violated the GPL. Which happens all the time here.

      Well, I agree with that assertion, anyway.

      The person who brute force discovers and uses someone else's code is not the one causing their Copy of Windows to be invalidated. Microsoft is doing that. This is a very important distinction..
      Exactly, like when I used your card number to order all that stuff. It wasn't me who took the money from your account, it was the bank. I just typed in some numbers. Why are you so upset? Credit Card numbers are information and information wants to be free. How could anyone be upset about that?

      Heh heh. Information wants to be free. Yeah, and my car wants to go fast.

      Seriously though, I don't feel that the two situations are analogous. If I intentionally used your specific registration code to invalidate your copy of windows, well, I'm still not stealing anything. I am taking an action that indirectly causes Microsoft to invalidate your copy of windows. I agree that doing that intentionally would be wrong, but I don't agree that it is theft.

      For one thing, you are still the owner of the copy of windows, or if you believe the bullshit that the computer industry attempts to push on you, the licensor. I am not. Therefore Microsoft is illegally terminating your right to use the software (whether you are in legal fact an owner or a licensor.) The fact that Microsoft would take an additional use of your key (which, as should have been obvious after the Windows XP Key generator, can be brute-forced) as a sign that you have broken the EULA or otherwise no longer have the right to use the software is the problem here.

      In addition, there are legitimate reasons to use a key which is not your own. You could have legally purchased the software but no longer have box or manuals (do you even get any manuals?) and you may not even have the disc - it could have been destroyed. You are still the legal licensor, under the "licensee" way of thinking. You are still entitled to run the software, but lack the means to do so without generating another key. Microsoft, however, prevents you from using the software for which you have paid. So, you might consider generating a key so that you can use the product. If Microsoft then chooses to invalidate someone else's copy of Windows, how is that my fault?

      You're acting like Microsoft is reasonable and I am unreasonable. But what's reasonable about invalidating your copy of windows just because someone else has the same key? Once, the EDD made me use a fake social security number because some mexican (I'm a quarter mexican, not that you could ever tell by looking at me) was using mine to evade taxes. That meant that my history was lost, and a new account was started for me. Was that right? But that guy had no real choice; the US has been taking gigantic shits on Mexico and helping to preserve the utterly corrupt status quo for many, many years now, because if we don't have mexicans to pick fruit and veggies, you'll be paying four bucks for a head of iceberg lettuce and sixty bucks for a bottle of crappy wine. So in order to feed his family he came here, and in order to work he used my SSN. Was the EDD's response justified? That poor field workin' dude didn't use my SSN in order to cause me hardship, but it happened anyway - but not because of him, because of the ridiculous response from the EDD.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    144. Re:MS would owe at least the key by AlHunt · · Score: 1

      Is the reason you don't want to "put up with this phone home behavior" because your copy of Windows is pirated?


      I'd imagine my new Toshiba laptop came with a real copy of XP, wouldn't you? I didn't get physical media except for the recovery disc. And WGA (which they pushed out via update without mentioning it, if you recall) seems to think I'm legit. Why? Do you know something I don't?

      I suppose if there weren't horror stories about WGA failing on legit copies I might not be too concerned. They checked once - that should be the end of it.
      --
      1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.
    145. Re:MS would owe at least the key by AlHunt · · Score: 1

      Because we don't give a shit? I paid for Windows, and part of the deal is that it sends a few tiny packets of information occasionally to check it's legit.


      No, it wasn't "part of the deal". MS acted in bad faith and changed the "deal" by adding WGA.

      --
      1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.
    146. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for proving his point. Using credit card numbers, or Vista activation keys you don't own isn't theft. It might be fraud. But it isn't theft. Thanks for coming out.

    147. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it isn't 'theft', dipshit. Get an education.

    148. Re:MS would owe at least the key by ednopantz · · Score: 1

      Huh,
      I intentionally used your specific registration code to invalidate your copy of windows,

      Seen the Twilight Zone episode where the lady gets a magic box with a button. Push it and someone she doesn't know dies.

      Here's an example of push it and someone's copy of Windows stops working. But the guy who pushes it isn't responsible for what happens.

      As far as the rest goes...

      Lay off the bong hits kid.

    149. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Semantics, semantics...

      The one pulling the trigger is up for manslaughter due to his lack of care in checking the gun (you ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS assume a gun is loaded and live when you point it at someone until you have checked it out for yourself [and they've done the same]).

      The one putting the bullets in is up for murder, yes.

      I still don't see how that proves theft rather than fraud. They're very different things, even if people don't think so. If I sell you a Dell computer, but it turns out it's really a Compaq, I've committed fraud. But I haven't stolen.

      If I use your Windows key for myself, I've committed fraud (against the license agreement in this case, but not against you). Microsoft could sue me; you, however, would have a difficult time of it, unless I was told not to copy the information (which you can't do if I guess it).

    150. Re:MS would owe at least the key by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Seen the Twilight Zone episode where the lady gets a magic box with a button. Push it and someone she doesn't know dies.

      The difference here is that someone who doesn't understand that they're invalidating someone else's code can be pressing the button. Oh yeah, and this is reality, and that was fiction. But thanks for playing.

      Lay off the bong hits kid.

      Ah yes, the last refuge of the incompetent debater.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    151. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Danga · · Score: 1

      I didn't get physical media except for the recovery disc.
      Talk to the reseller you bought from about that, that is not MS's fault. Whoever you bought from is too cheap to provide you with a true backup copy.

      They checked once - that should be the end of it.

      The check once idea wouldn't work because there would obviously just be some bit somewhere (ok more complicated than that but you get the idea) saying "this copy of windows has already been checked" which some "pirate" could figure out how to set to bypass the checking. BTW this checking happens like once every 6 months and takes less than a minute to complete so it is not a hassle at all (unless you consider clicking 2 or three "next" buttons too much). You also have the choice NOT to accept the check if you wish if it really is too much for you.

      A lot of people use unlicensed copies of of MS software and I don't blame them for at least attempting to stop some of it. If you owned a software company would you just be fine having millions of people around the world using unlicensed copies? I rely on software sales at the company I work at to put food on my plate and have a roof over my head so I know I would do something similar to what they are doing. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head that I would do differently is check once a year instead of bi-annually, even so 2minutes a year and a couple button clicks is not worth bitching about and if it bothers you so damn much why did you get a new laptop with Windows XP on it in the first place? Wipe the drive and slap linux on it you whiner.

      --
      Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
    152. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The irony is that this is an example where IP theft *is* actually taking the original out of commission.

      But the irony to the irony....

      If you call it stolen, then isn't MS selling "stolen" property if they issue the key after the brute-forced key is already in use?

      If MS later generates a key that you previously generated, they're stomping all over your intellectual property! That key was your new products and dogs name, and they have no right to it!

      Do train your dog to respond to it...

    153. Re:MS would owe at least the key by FLEB · · Score: 1

      Apple sells computers, not operating systems (or, at the very most, computer/OS bundles). The OS/Hardware combination is not trivially duplicable, where an OS usable on commodity hardware is (apart from artificial technical protections). Try running OSX/Intel on anything but an Intel Mac, and see how far your valued customership gets you with Apple legal.

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    154. Re:MS would owe at least the key by C0rinthian · · Score: 1

      Thats because you bought the most expensive dongle ever along with the OS.

    155. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Threni · · Score: 1

      I don't see the difference between wga and the key system, to be honest. Microsoft is just checking to make sure you're not using someone elses key. I don't care what the system is called. It works for me, and apparently it's working pretty well.

    156. Re:MS would owe at least the key by monkeydo · · Score: 1

      And you've obviously never been involved with license management in any size organization. There's no such thing as volume licensing that requires "no management".

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    157. Re:MS would owe at least the key by FLEB · · Score: 1

      So you're trying to install to a computer with a faulty hard disk, and you're complaining that it didn't work? Shocking!

      As for the FAT32/NTFS problem, I've never run into that, either. Granted, I tend to back everything up and wipe the partition, or I'm working from a fresh drive. In any case, I've found the most taxing part of installing Windows to be the part where you have to wait through all the "Oh, your computer's going to be SO much better now!" marketing bull while it installs.

      No, wait, I take that back. I had to put in my timezone. That was one long dropdown list.

      I'll grant, there are some annoying procedures of "destupidification" that a more experienced user may wish to go through after installing Windows XP (assure Explorer you have two brain cells to rub together, get it to show all the hidden folders and files, turn off Simple File Sharing, turn off the useless theming and visual effects) but other than that, it's a rather painless process.

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    158. Re:MS would owe at least the key by monkeydo · · Score: 1

      So you don't own the right to use the software -- you've rented it for a period of time to be determined by Microsoft.
      That's correct. But the period of time is not limited as you imply. The retail version of Vista is good for as long as I don't pirate it.

      Doesn't that bother you?
      Absolutely not. Because I wouldn't be able to afford to compensate MS for the right to make unlimited copies of Vista. Have you ever rented a car? Did it bother you that in exchange for $20/day you didn't get the right to repaint it whatever color you like?
      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    159. Re:MS would owe at least the key by JackMeyhoff · · Score: 1

      Its not just a dongle, its an Apple branded dongle!! Now STFU and let me enjoy my Mocca coffee in my nice Bono (Red) turtle neck.

      --
      http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
    160. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I take it you would never enter a library. By reading books or magazines or using any other facilities you would be STEALING from the authors and publishers.

      I don't really care what your values are. If a friend gives me a mix cd or sends me an mp3, I haven't stolen from him, you, or anyone else. It's illogical and fallacious to assume that every instance of non-commercial copyright infringement is a lost sale. Sometimes I hear a song I like, maybe only part of a song. (For example movies often use small clips or loop parts of songs). I will go look for that song. I am not going to buy your CD or your song without listening to the whole thing. That means I will download the cd, or the song, or whatever it is I find. If I don't like it, I won't buy it. If I do like it and you're not part of the RIAA, I'll buy it. If you're part of the RIAA then I have a decision.

      Violating the GPL means taking someone elses work and presenting it as your own. That's plagiarism isn't related to non-commercial copyright infringement. They're totally different issues and a persons opinions about one have no weight or bearing on their opinion about another.

      The point of this article and discussion is this:
      It's not hard to pirate software, music, or anything else. DRM will be broken. Authentication will be spoofed and kracked. By creating such elaborate DRM protection schemes, companies and individuals simply make life more difficult for legitimate users. The people who are willing to pay are going to. The people who aren't willing to pay will continue to hack their way through and get what they want anyway, even if it costs them more time. It's a waste of time, money and resources to implement complex schemes to try and lock people out, because they're never 100%. And once one person punches a hole through it, anyone else can follow their steps.

    161. Re:MS would owe at least the key by JackMeyhoff · · Score: 1

      Yes SGI had the same business model, so did Sun. These companies are doing great I hear

      --
      http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
    162. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It doesn't cost me anything, so why should I care?

      Yup. Around here the night watchman regularly peeps in my windows to make sure I'm supposed to be here. I hardly ever even notice when he does it! It doesn't cost me anything, so who cares? Of course when my neighbor Bob forgot to tell them he'd cut his hair and shaved his mustache they went in and dragged him out of his house, but come on, that was obviously his fault! He should have told them.

      The point is, I have nothing to hide, so what do I care if it keeps tabs on me? Ya gotta watch people! How else will you know if they're up to no good? Sheesh.

    163. Re:MS would owe at least the key by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      Ah, another well-reasoned and eloquent argument on Slashdot. Perhaps someday I could return to school as you suggest and my only hope is that a can achieve a small fraction of your brilliance. But, alas, I'm sure you have forgotten more about dipshit then I'll ever know.

    164. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      You simply forget for every whore story there are 100 or more people that had no issue, the people that speak up are the ones that had issues with the software.

      No big deal, unless you're one of the 1% (yeah right) that had issues. I prefer the zero per hundred issues of software that doesn't require activation.

      And by the way, it's "horror story," not whore story, unless you were tying to imply something else.

    165. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sounds like Microsoft is the one subscribing to a value system of personal gain and convenience. The activation system certainly isn't looking out for their customers personal gain and convenience.

    166. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Darundal · · Score: 1

      I still don't understand why people get upset with a company periodically checking to see if your install is valid. They have been doing it for years with Business Software.

      Yes, well, I think home users and business users have very different bullshit tolerance levels for software. Especially for an Operating System.

    167. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Around here the night watchman regularly peeps in my windows to make sure I'm supposed to be here.
      > I hardly ever even notice when he does it! It doesn't cost me anything, so who cares?

      It costs you whatever you decided to pay the watchman, mr fucking analogy genius.

    168. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      Actually, the Supreme Court ruled in Dowling v. United States that copyright infringement does not "easily equate to theft" for a number of reasons--the rights granted to a copyright holder are significantly different from those granted to a property owner, and copyright is a separate body of law that intentionally uses the term "infringement" instead of "theft"--and that therefore laws about stolen property do not apply to illegal copies.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    169. Re:MS would owe at least the key by shakestheclown · · Score: 1

      Remind me not to hire you as my system admin...

    170. Re:MS would owe at least the key by rtb61 · · Score: 1
      Didn't M$ do exactly that with xboxes, and demand money from the customers to fix a problem they created. It never ceases to amaze me the extent and consistency with which M$ will continually lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie.

      Hate to be repetitive there but that is the only way to reflect the reality of a company that can't seem to stop lying, they truly are one of the most disgusting companies I have ever had to deal with, faulty products, offensive warranties, abusive to customers and utterly deceitful.

      I really wonder if Bill Gates can stand look at what has become of the company that he helped to create, no wonder he is leaving, I can imagine the only thing that is keeping him there is the debt he feels towards the staff.

      So will M$ deactivate customers whose licences get copied, in a second, and then it will force them to beg for reactivation, all at the customers expense (customers lost time contacting M$, lost time while dealing with dysfunctional product etc.).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    171. Re:MS would owe at least the key by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      Ironic would be someone who pirates windows freaking out because somebody violated the GPL. Which happens all the time here.

      Ironic would be someone who steals candy from the liquor store who freaks out because somebody else is selling stolen candy quite blatanty in front of the cops. No, wait; that's not irony. That's jealousy.

      Btw, what evidence do you have that piracy of Windows is a common occurance here? Far as I understood it, most people got a copy of Windows with whatever PC they bought, short of buying a barebones system. I'd imagine *most* people have a legal copy of Windows. Now, the fact that they might be advocating, viacriously, that others should pirate Windows to "stick it to the man" is something else.

      PS - And this isn't to say that piracy is theft. It's just to point out that it's more an act of jealousy, since if you're willing to pirate windows, why wouldn't you just pirate the GPL-violating software? Of course if you *do* follow the law, then it makes perfect sense that you'd be miffed that others, Windows piraters and GPL violators alike, aren't and you're suffering. Not that people are always rational about such things and follow such logic.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    172. Re:MS would owe at least the key by toddestan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How is it any different than needing a corporate license server for Autocad, or Rational, or any of the other software commonly licensed this way on the corporate level? It's not like these license servers are terribly difficult to maintain.

      It's different becaues with programs like Autocad, you generally don't have all your users of the software using it at the same time. Thus, the license server allows the company to save some money buy only buying the number of licenses they think they will need at any one time and having people "check out" the license from the server when they start the application, instead of buying a license for every computer that needs the software. On the other hand, most corporate PCs are going to be running Windows all the time, so the number of licenses is going to equal the number of PC's anyway. Thus, the server doesn't save the company any money by letting them get by with less licenses.

    173. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Cocoshimmy · · Score: 1

      The point is that it is BOTH fraud and theft. Just because something is fraud does not automatically exclude it from being theft. This should be obvious, but they are not mutually exclusive.

      If you use someone elses credit card it is fraud AND theft. You are pretending to be someone you are not so that you can make a purchase (fraud) which allows you to make purchases at someone else's expense. Then you actually make those purchases and keep it for yourself (theft). This isn't a hard concept.

      Similarly, if you present someone else's Vista key to Microsoft as your own, that is fraud. Then if you activate that key, you effectively take that privilege away from someone else who has paid for that priviledge (theft).

    174. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to fucking miss the point, mr reader genius.

    175. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Raideen · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but it's much more difficult than running *no* activation server, as was the previous method. Also, when you're talking about corporations with 10,000+ workstations, it might not be as trivial as you think. What happens when there's corruption in the license database?

    176. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      Windows Vista customers are going to be at best confused and worst case screwed because some idiot stole their key.

      Actually, they'll be screwed because Microsoft chooses to screw them, and Microsoft chooses to screw people who use the same key that someone else uses.

      It's fine to blame the key stealer; maybe they really do deserve up to half of the blame. But just remember: the only reason key stealing matters, and the only reason a key exists to be stolen, is because Microsoft wants it to be that way. Name one paying user who asked for this "feature." Microsoft went to extra trouble -- spent time and money -- in order to harm the very people (paying customers) that you are sympathizing with. Paying customers are the only people who could possibly be screwed by product-activation issues -- screwing them is the software's purpose. So when you blame pirates, perhaps correctly, for customers' problem, remember who put that gun into the pirates' hands and told the pirate where to aim it.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    177. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's correct. But the period of time is not limited as you imply. The retail version of Vista is good for as long as I don't pirate it.

      Has that been addressed for sure? What happens when they EOL it and shutdown the auth servers?

    178. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Danga:

      You sound like a GOP appologist -- "Who cares if they only tap the phones of the terrorists."

      It's a slippery slope when machines start phoning home for "legitimate reasons". Sorry if I'm a whiner for realizing that.

    179. Re:MS would owe at least the key by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I still don't understand why people get upset with a company periodically checking to see if your install is valid. They have been doing it for years with Business Software. Now because of increasing amounts of piracy companies like Microsoft who make most of their money from the OS itself have to do it for their software.

      Because they didn't read and understand the EULA during installation. I must admit that I didn't read enough of it to claim to understand it (the MSWind98 EULA), but I understood enough to know that I wanted out NOW!! It took me over a year to transition to Red Hat Linux 5.x. Even finding a word processor was difficult. (No, Lyx[?] doesn't satisfy me. What else is available?) I eventually ended up with StarOffice 5.2(?), but that wasn't the first or second one I tried.

      If you understand the MS EULA, then when something like this happens you just go "OK, what's the next shoe on this milipede?" You've agreed that they can do whatever they want to you whenever they want. This includes entering your home/place of business without warning and confiscating all of your computers. As I said, once I read that I took the short road out.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    180. Re:MS would owe at least the key by notaprguy · · Score: 1

      I love it! Funny story. I was in London two weeks ago for business and was walking down the street with a couple of Brits an American and an Indian (east). We were talking about funny "English" English words and for some reason "wanker" came up. I was familiar with the term :) as was the other American but my Indian friend, a very prim woman, didn't. We had to find the most polite way to explain the meaning of the word.

    181. Re:MS would owe at least the key by PPGMD · · Score: 1
      You've agreed that they can do whatever they want to you whenever they want. This includes entering your home/place of business without warning and confiscating all of your computers. As I said, once I read that I took the short road out.

      Huh? I have read both the Vista and the XP EULAs and no where is there permission to confiscate your computers. With a court order they might be able to but only so far as required for a criminal case.

    182. Re:MS would owe at least the key by pizpot · · Score: 1

      If autocad had a brain, they would port over to linux, and put out a distro. Then they can quit having to worry about os changes. Every time windows stops a designer from designing is costs to much time and money to accept.

    183. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, cause I'm sure that porting the software to Linux would take much less effort than upgrading some API calls from one Windows to the next. And I'm sure customers wouldn't mind rebooting into a different, unknown operating system every time they wanted to use a program.

    184. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The richest man in the world...the man who is richer than anyone has ever been in the history of the world...is concerned that people are stealing from him.

      he's a turd. remember who you are defending. NOTHING helped Windows 3.1 more than piracy.

      Hell...you couldn't even USE DOS on a floppy disk without copying it, could you? wake the fuck up!

    185. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Tsagadai · · Score: 1

      I can honestly say I've had more hardware problems in windows than linux. And I used gentoo to boot. It is very difficult to track down random hardware crashes with windows especially things like RAID, network errors, pci cards falling out, RAM failing, etc. I've had all of the same things happen in linux and it didn't even reset. If it happens in windows reinstalling is usually the shortest way to fix those problems. Run some no standard hardware, dodgy connectors, randomly plug and unplug things and windows will die, linux will not. End of story.

    186. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always thought incompetent debaters are ones who use irrelevant personal anecdotes to muster up some point to make, guess I was wrong...

      Last I checked, people didn't need to pirate vista through illegal activation because they are the victims of overwhelming social-economic factors. They "need" to pirate cause they can't afford it. Just like I "need" to steal a Bentley cause I can't afford that.

      Please show us how, without resorting to ridiculous examples, how an average computer user is FORCED to get vista, yet has no recourse but to pirate it, for his livelihood.

      Microsoft might be "unreasonable" in its implementations, but it is only "unreasonable" when people look at illegal activities and accept it as an inevitable status quo. "How unreasonable and inconvenient, don't they know the pirates will still get their way? Damn Microsoft and its Nazi ways while we ignore the fact the pirates are the ones who ultimately makes the choice."

      I don't know how many times I gave my friends a copy of Doom or Quake in the old days, but never have I went out of my way to justify what I was doing.

    187. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No but it does allow you to use 1 key instead of 30,000. The savings there alone for the IT staff should easily justify the cost decision.

    188. Re:MS would owe at least the key by El_Oscuro · · Score: 1

      I wish I had some mod points so I could make this funny

      --
      "Be grateful for what you have. You may never know when you may lose it."
    189. Re:MS would owe at least the key by ericmedici · · Score: 1
      I personally enjoy this logic:

      In addition, there are legitimate reasons to use a key which is not your own. You could have legally purchased the software but no longer have box or manuals (do you even get any manuals?) and you may not even have the disc - it could have been destroyed. You are still the legal licensor, under the "licensee" way of thinking. You are still entitled to run the software, but lack the means to do so without generating another key. Microsoft, however, prevents you from using the software for which you have paid. So, you might consider generating a key so that you can use the product. If Microsoft then chooses to invalidate someone else's copy of Windows, how is that my fault?
      Let me re-apply this logic to another scenario:

      In addition, there are legitimate reasons to use a key which is not your own. You could have legally purchased the car but no longer have title or manuals (do you even get any manuals?) and you may not even have the car - it could have been destroyed. You are still the legal licensor, under the "licensee" way of thinking. You are still entitled to run the car, but lack the means to do so without generating another key. Porsche, however, prevents you from using the car for which you have paid. So, you might consider generating a key so that you can use the car. If Porsche then chooses to invalidate someone else's car, how is that my fault?

      I understand that my analogy is not perfect, but is intended to stimulate the mind. The biggest issue I have with this logic is: How can the company that provided you with the product, verify that you, in fact, purchased it? If we decide to throw away our discs, licenses and receipts, what right do we have to our product (legally)? The police would laugh all the way to the precinct, with me in cuffs, as I explain to them that this is in fact my car, but I lost the title...
    190. Re:MS would owe at least the key by IchBinEinPenguin · · Score: 1

      I totally don't understand the bizarre perception that software thievs are somehow Robin-hood-like characters. They're the 21st century equivalent of pick-pockets.

      I agree. But here's the rub: In order to discourage these thieves Microsoft has externalised a lot of cost and pain onto its customers.
      That's nasty. The only reason they can get away with that is because they're a monopoly.
      If someone uses my key (assuming for one second I'd actually buy Vista :-) Microsoft is going to assume that I shared it and they're going to punish me. If I did share my key, I broke the license and probably deserve what I get.
      This exploit, however, demonstrates that the assumption that a duplicate key was willingly shared, and thus deserves to be blacklisted, is just plain wrong. The burden of proof should be on them; I should be "innocent unless proven otherwise" (I'm sure I've hear that somewhere before.....) not "guilty until I buy another copy 'cos it's easier than fighting the system".

      The sooner Microsoft looses its monopoly the sooner its customers will be better off.

    191. Re:MS would owe at least the key by adrianmonk · · Score: 1

      The person who brute force discovers and uses someone else's code is not the one causing their Copy of Windows to be invalidated. Microsoft is doing that.

      It's a fairly weak argument that the person who discovers the key is not causing the other person's copy of Windows to be invalidated. Yes, it would not happen if Microsoft hadn't programmed its activation servers to work that way, but (a) Microsoft did, and (b) this is common knowledge, and (c) if the person didn't discover and use the key, nothing would have happened, and (d) if the person does discover and use the key, something will happen.

      Yes, you can certainly argue that nothing would happen if Microsoft hadn't come up with this licensing scheme, and that's true. So, Microsoft is part of the cause of someone's copy of Windows being deactivated. But in just the same way, the deactivation would not have happened if the person hadn't discovered and used the key. So, that person is part of the cause too. Both parties (Microsoft, and the person who discovered someone else's key) are causes of the event.

      So perhaps the fair thing to do would be to spread the blame equally. However, there is an argument that Microsoft should share less of the blame than the person who discovered a key: one way of assigning blame is to look at the person who had the last reasonable opportunity to avoid causing the problem, and in this case, clearly that is the person running the keygen and discovering someone else's key, because they did it after the activation policy was known, and they did it intentionally (which means they did not try to avoid causing the problem).

      I'm all for reasonable rules about copyright, and I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy (probably more), but it just isn't reasonable to pretend someone can take what they know is quite possibly already in use by someone else and not be even part of the cause of problems that person experiences. At best, it's overly simplistic. At worst, it's disingenuous and stupid.

    192. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Laserwulf · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, program buys you!

      --
      "Make cyberlove, not cyberwar!" -Khaed(544779)
    193. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's unbelievable how deep the Microsoft hate runs. When *Microsoft* gets blamed for people purposely circumventing their validation service for the purpose of not having to pay, you have to question to the logic of the zealots.

      Think of this analogy, as anti-Microsoft drones are often Apple diehards: Apple sells iTunes gift certifications at retail stores worldwide. You pay $15 or so, get a card with a number of it, and you go home and type it into your computer and get some credits that you can spend on music. What if there was some way to brute force this system such that you could extract serial numbers that would be valid on the iTunes server? And that there was a partial collision between the gift-certificate numbers, and your brute forced numbers?

      It's the same situation. The brute forcer gets a free copy some data, and will eventually lock out legitimate users. So tell me, is the brute forcer absolved of all responsibility, and it's purely Apple's fault for locking out the legitimate user?

      I read your other rationalizations. You claim people lose license keys all the time and that this is a way to right a wrong. Ignoring the obvious stretching of the truth (do you really think people are brute forcing keys because they lost their CD case?), I can't think of a situation where a corporation would give you a replacement product if you lost every single trace of your original purchase. Try walking into Best Buy, tell them that you lost your copy of some random audio CD, and demand a refund. It's just data, right?

      Open your eyes. Brute forcing keys is essentially locking out someone else with the original key. Just because it's a Microsoft product doesn't make it right.

    194. Re:MS would owe at least the key by AnyThingButWindows · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Purchasing hundreds, or thousands of dollars worth of hardware just to maintain 'SOME COMPANY's' licensing scheme seems pretty damn stupid to me. Why would any company in their right mind, spend that much money to maintain another company's so called 'anti piracy efforts'. Why can't microsoft pony up their OWN cash to maintain their OWN problems. Everyone knows they have the money. Sorry, but forking over money to protect someone elses delusional 'anti-priacy-scheme', that I might not even agree with in the first place is is not a solution. Microsoft needs to tackle their own problems instead of trying to get others to do so. Not even an wild animal would imprison itself, why would a human?

      The entire idea is right out of 1984. If you object to that idea and want to mod this down, then good luck with your 10 minute hate.

      --
      When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. - Jefferson
    195. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Well, I would say that if I lost the key to my Porsche, and because of this, I went to my workshop and created a new key. This key happens to match the key of some other random Porsche owner. The key works to start my Porsche though. Well, I would say that if Porsche bugged my car to call home and tell them what key was used in my car, and remotely disabled some other Porsche owners car because of this, they acted improperly.

    196. Re:MS would owe at least the key by WNight · · Score: 1

      I see, you believed what they told you. That's why you're wrong.

      If you buy something over a counter, as you would a pack of gum, then you own it.

      No two ways about it. EULAs are post-sale contracts and thus unenforceable.

      Moreover, they don't even have the right to tell you not to "crack" the software. It's yours, you can give it the number they gave to you, or any other number you like.

      If you didn't agree, in writing, that you don't own Windows, then you do. You'd have to agree otherwise for a sale to be turned into something else. If you have a volume liensing plan, you did agree to a license. If you merely bought your computer or OS in the store, it's yours. Totally and absolutely.

    197. Re:MS would owe at least the key by WNight · · Score: 1

      This one pointed out something I wish more people would consider, that the usage patterns aren't the same when we shift apps or OSes.

      Windows *is* a pain to install. Just try doing hard stuff (weird drive layouts, SCSI, etc). But nobody sees it, so it's hard to explain to them why the techs say Windows sucks to install. They've tried to install Linux once on weird hardware and have always bought Windows pre-installed on laptops.

      When this person is a CTO this gets dangerous.

      They expect Linux to be hard to admin because it's "hard to install", but imho Linux boxes used for coding/testing require about a tenth the re-installs and maintenance of Windows boxes - not individually, but in a TCO sort of way.

      Ten Linux servers are probably going to require less admin footwork than ten Windows desktops, even though Windows is "easier" for any individual machine.

      Anyways, because we're stuck on how Windows is an easier install, nobody allocates resources to actually make it that way (like getting an MSDN license and building slipstreamed install discs). Even Microsoft must believe the lie because their installer doesn't cope with the really hard installs very well at all.

      What I, as a Linux user, see when running Windows is a bunch of in-your-face glitzy crap and 20% of my experience is dominated by it. To a Windows user, they've tweaked it and paid that price long ago, and now less than %0.2 of their experience is dominated by it. If I was to blanketly state that glitz is bad I'd be wrong, but my limited data would support me fully.

      Whenever the discussion comes up I can't understand how someone ends up trying recompile their Linux kernel right away, and they can't understand why I bitch about getting Windows to install on a drive it didn't format.

      Usage testing is supposed to catch this, but everyone is biased as to what a normal user is...

    198. Re:MS would owe at least the key by WNight · · Score: 1

      Try installing Windows XP on a 150GB HD that the BIOS shows as 120(?), with Linux already on some partitions.

      Windows XP, when patched to SP2, can see the whole drive, but apparently even when slipstreamed, the installer could not. So I made the partitions in Linux, leaving the first partition, C, primary. I didn't install a boot-loader or anything, just install Linux on the second and remaining partitions. Windows wouldn't see it, even when I checked with Partition Magic that the partition table was correct, Windows still wouldn't use it. When I did format it with Windows, it wiped the rest of the partitions despite saying it wouldn't. Eventually I got Win XP in, on its own now, and got it patched to SP2, partitioned, and installed Linux, which went in like a dream even though it hadn't done the formatting, didn't get primary partitions, etc.

      Windows just isn't "made" for the corner cases. It's meant to be installed in the factory. Linux is a bit more complex, but rarely fails because of lack of the tools.

      When I install Linux I do so from a LiveCD where I browse the net with my persistent CF-card home directory. If I have any problems I can install apps, during the boot process, to solve the problem, then continue.

      When I install Windows I'm in DOS. An 80x40 text screen where it shows me cryptic lists of drives that don't match what the GUIs show. Where I have to know the pathname of the scsi driver I want because I can't just click in a nice GUI.

      Do you understand? Installing your Linux OS is done from a DVD-boot live OS with more features than Windows comes with. Windows however is still installed in the same fashion it was before DVDs existed, before the web existed, let alone before you could browse it wirelessly while installing. Sure, once you get through the hard stuff Windows will through a feel-good fake GUI up, where you can view advertising while it copies files. And then, at the end you get a GUI for config just before you finish. Wow. How 1992.

      But most people don't install Windows so they blissfully think it's easy. These people become IT managers.

    199. Re:MS would owe at least the key by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      The Doctrine of First Sale and many US Judges disagree with you.

      You can't just take a single payment and call it a perpetual license, it's a sale.

      These shinanegins should be dealt with in court.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    200. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Cramer · · Score: 1

      You restore a previous *non*corrupted copy from backup. The fact that you asked indicates you have no experience with such environments. (the company's core servers would have free-standing licenses, esp. the license server itself.)

    201. Re:MS would owe at least the key by WNight · · Score: 1

      If I run a business I'm not going to want a bunch of moralistic handwaving crap on Microsoft's part, as to why my copies of Windows Vista my staff is using shutdown based on the actions of some guy in Russia.

      If there's a kill switch in my software I'll blame the person who put it there, for *all* false positives. I don't give two shits about MS's piracy problem. Not at all.

      I really don't get the expectation that I should suffer because Microsoft's business model is broken.

      As I see it, a product that terminates itself like that is theft. I paid for something and now for circumstances I don't even know about, it's being taken away. Hell no. That's not a "lost sale" or some theoretical revenue from a non-customer, that's an actual product in my hands that I paid actual money for, being taken away to potentially guard MS against a loss of theoretical profits.

      The real rub is that they don't stop any copying, at all, the cracker just generates another number and goes on.

      I don't fill in paper warranty cards, and I will not fill in electronic ones, especially if they don't offer me anything I want. I already paid for the right to own the software. This is funny, because I use a fake serial number despite having a legit copy that came with the laptop. My privacy seeking could have already knocked some other user out. This isn't illegal copying, simply choosing to use the copy I bought without going through extraneous and unenforceable extra steps. Microsoft chooses to illegally deactivate Windows for some other legitimate user when I do this and you side with them. Fucked up.

      I should get the password generator and try it, trying to generate as many fake keys as possible so that some may overlap legitimate keys and fool Microsoft into disabling the software of a legitimate user. I'm not their customer, I'm not hacking "into" anything, I'm merely using their server (which should require a password if it isn't public) to ask if a given random number looks like a valid windows keys. It's Microsoft who will be freaking out because someone guessed an already guessed number.

      You might not think this would be a dangerous threat, as there must be a huge number of possible keys (25^36) and a small number of allocated keys (25 ^ 5, tops). But the birthday paradox (duplicate birthdays in a random group of people, 24(?) required for 50% odds.) suggests that I have far less than the entire keyspace to go before I collide with legitimate users.

      Any situation like this where a company builds a remote hidden kill-switch into our products is unacceptable. If people don't notice it just because it doesn't hit many people at first it'll be harder to get rid of later. If everyone with a legit license calls MS to revalidate it every six months their complaints will get it changed quickly.

    202. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Cramer · · Score: 1

      WTF? XP most certainly will install to an NTFS volume. In fact, given the size of modern drives, XP cannot format them as FAT32. XP's version of format was cripled to not format anything larger than 8GB(? maybe 32?) as FAT32. It's actually a huge f'ing pain in the ass as NTFS is not "multi-machine friendly". (think external removable storage)

      I think your issue is with a System Restore Disk and not an actual OS installation disk. The restore CD for my sony laptop will plop an 8GB FAT32 partition on the drive -- it's actually a pain in the ass to get it not to, but it is possible to get even that PoS to dump into an existing NTFS volume. (I've sworn off restore disks.)

    203. Re:MS would owe at least the key by WNight · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Whatever happens in the future, it's Microsoft who sold you an operating system with a remote kill switch. Think about that.

      Then think about Microsoft letting *foreign terrorists* disable your computer! Someone want to sell this to FOX with this angle? :)

    204. Re:MS would owe at least the key by fuliginous · · Score: 1

      There is a difference. The operating system most of us would consider is what gives us access to the whole of our computers resources. If you can't use it without the additional server the operating system becomes the software on your machine plus the software on the server. The other difference is you didn't have to do this before (you may have I don't know). But simply the OS is no longer self contained and complete of itself. The simpler administration under certain (probably common) instances I take your word for and believe.

    205. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I noticed the same thing, at first I thought the same thing as you. But I think GP was actually saying "china" to mean "someone on the other side of the world who could not be more divorced from my affairs", than to mean, "those damn people from china are unscrupulous bastards, not like the west which is 100% honest".

    206. Re:MS would owe at least the key by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Well, in this particular case, stealing a key so you can run an illegal copy when you know it prevents someone from running the OS they've purchased a license to is plain old fashion theft. So the typical "it doesn't deny the owner use" excuse doesn't apply.

      But it doesn't deny the owner use. After all, Joe User doesn't own Windows, he merely has a revokable license to use it. If Microsoft decides to revoke that license because of something Pete Pirate did, who is at fault for Microsoft's actions - Pete or Microsoft ?

      Or to put it another way: If you steal from me, and that makes me so angry that I kill a random bystander, does that make you a murderer ?

      Violating software's copyright may or may not be immoral, but in either case it in no way makes the violator responsible for the actions of the party who's copyrights were violated. It is not Pete who revoked Joe's license, but Microsoft. Therefore it is Microsoft's fault that Joe is left without license, not Pete's.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    207. Re:MS would owe at least the key by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Ironic would be someone who pirates windows freaking out because somebody violated the GPL. Which happens all the time here.

      Perhaps you might provide links to comments made by the same user (as identified by the username or indicated by the statements in question being in the same comment) which both indicate that he has pirated Windows, and that he is "freaked out" by someone violating the GPL ?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    208. Re:MS would owe at least the key by kextyn · · Score: 1

      You apparently don't know Bill too well. First you need to look at how he started MS and what he has done to keep it going (he didn't exactly come up with all the ideas that are implemented in Windows...which they tend to call their own.) I have a very good friend (who is very honest and I trust her more than most people I know) who personally met Bill when he was staying in a 5 star hotel where she worked. After she met him (or rather observed his actions with other people and his family) she thought he was a complete dick. And someone who has that much money can be as much of a dick as they want because well, they have all the money.

    209. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you have a bad sector on your hard drive your hardware is faulty and you can't really blame the windows installer

    210. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Raideen · · Score: 1

      Obviously... I was simply point out that it's non-trivial for very large environments, especially if you've activated systems between the time of the backup and the detected corruption. If the systems that were previously activated automatically reactivate, then it's not that big of a deal. Still, it's something else to maintain.

    211. Re:MS would owe at least the key by leuk_he · · Score: 1

      if you only checked it yourself you could have seen it was a hoax....

    212. Re:MS would owe at least the key by deathy_epl+ccs · · Score: 1

      You don't need to dedicate an entire server to it, you just install it on one of your existing servers and be done with it. It's not going to consume an entire machine's resources.

    213. Re:MS would owe at least the key by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I can't answer your question directly because:
      1) It's been a long time, and
      2) I never read those particular licenses
      But the MS enforcement agency has shut down entire cities for an "unannounced audit". I'm talking about the "Business Software Alliance", aka BSA. One city they shut down was Charlotttesville, South Carolina (I think I've got the name right)...I'm operating off a news story from around 1995 here...and if there was a followup, I don't remember it.

      I'll admit that I don't, and never have, understood why the license gives them the right to do this kind of shakedown racket, but the govt. seems to agree with them that it does give them such a right. IANAL, so I presume that if the govt. allows the license to be an excuse to shut down a city govt., then it actually does give them that right. (They claim this right, and execute it frequently against individual companies. Usually it's used as an extortion racket...as in "Pay up or we shut you down!", but occasionally they just bust in with cops in attendence. I presume that they have a warrant, but the news stories are generally too vague to allow me to decide with certainty that this is claimed as truth.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    214. Re:MS would owe at least the key by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      the way it works is in retail you have
      System dials up Microsoft and then says this is my key and hardware hash may i continue to work? (yes no Err) (if yes or Err sleep for 30 days and retry)

      In a VLK situation you have
      System dials up a local server and asks that local server May i continue working? (yes no Err) then sleep for 30 days and retry and on the back end the server dials up Microsoft and checks to see how many yeses i has (get number and sleep for 30 days then retry)

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    215. Re:MS would owe at least the key by AlHunt · · Score: 1

      >Wipe the drive and slap linux on it you whiner.

      I take it you'll be Public Domaining your "Method For Creating Controversy from Casual Conversation Via Mindless Attack"?

      Are you thinking GPL, CC, or what? Please be clear with the group in case anybody else runs out of actual thoughtful commentary and needs to resort to mindless bashing.

      --
      1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.
    216. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Skater · · Score: 1

      Nope, retail XP installation disc. Try again. I haven't bought a computer from a vendor in almost a decade.

      It was a 10 gigabyte partition on the hard disc.

      I don't know why but the damn thing would not accept it being an NTFS volume when I tried it.

    217. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Skater · · Score: 1

      The "faulty hard disc" has been working fine ever since, several years later. There was something messed up in the FAT32 partition for that sector (go figure - a file error on a FAT32 partition...), I guess, and I couldn't get any Windows utility (chkdsk or whatever it is), command line or GUI, to correct the problem. After I formatted the partition it worked fine, and the drive is still running just fine. I thought I'd save myself some time by formatting it to NTFS but that's where Windows installer demanded FAT32. I don't know why.

    218. Re:MS would owe at least the key by Sobrique · · Score: 1
      Theft requires removal of someone elses property. Theft of services I believe includes 'impact on the service' - if you download a file from someone elses server, then you've 'stolen' the bandwithd/CPU time. However you haven't 'stolen' the file - they still have it.

      If the other person doesn't lose _anything_ it isn't theft. Loss of revenue due to copyright infringement isn't theft either - you've not taken away anything, just not made a purchase you might have otherwise done.

  2. Easy Fix by DJCacophony · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All Microsoft has to do is block the IP address that is requesting thousands of activations on separate, invalid keys per second.

    --
    Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
    1. Re:Easy Fix by tomstdenis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lots of botnets run on windows ... I wonder if they could be commanded to scan for license keys.

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    2. Re:Easy Fix by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think the program actually tries the keys on its own algorithm, and when it finds a valid one it tells you to submit it to microsoft.

    3. Re:Easy Fix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Imagine a Beowulf Cluster of These!

    4. Re:Easy Fix by richy+freeway · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're right. You have to monitor your Vista key to see if it's changed, using the Jellybean Keyfinder. When you spot it's changed you have to manually attempt an activation. If it fails then you leave it running longer until the key changes again, then retry activation. Repeat until activation succeeds.

    5. Re:Easy Fix by Odiumjunkie · · Score: 5, Informative

      > All Microsoft has to do is block the IP address that is requesting thousands of activations on > separate, invalid keys per second. RTFA. That's nothing like how this works. The actual activation part is totally manual, only the key generation is automated. You can generate keys without any kind of network connectivity.

    6. Re:Easy Fix by another_fanboy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Imagine a Beowulf Cluster of These!
      Windows boxes or botnets? I for one would be frightened of either.

    7. Re:Easy Fix by NSIM · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lots of botnets run on windows ... I wonder if they could be commanded to scan for license keys.
      That's actually a pretty scary thought, it's not hard to determine the install key used from an application running on the OS (there are several utilities out there today.) A botnet could e designed to get the install key and send it back to someone who could maintain a database of valid keys. This probably true for just about any application or OS that uses an install key, to be honest I'm surprised somebody hasn't already done this to XP or Office.
    8. Re:Easy Fix by kv9 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Imagine a Beowulf Cluster of These!

      imagine a beowulf cluster of cheese!

    9. Re:Easy Fix by dintech · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nice, you invented the concept of thievery@home. I imagine a print out of lots of vista keys with "wow!" written at the side of one...

    10. Re:Easy Fix by RKThoadan · · Score: 1

      I'd ask you to RTFA, but TFA doesn't have much. The source link in the article gives you much more detail.

      Basically, the program spits out a potential key now and then based on what it knows about valid keys. From the forum posts it seems to usually get one in around 30 mins to an hour. Then you have to try to validate it with Microsoft (at most trying to validate twice an hour). Most people seem get a valid key within a few hours.

      From that description, it's going to be really hard for MS to stop this from their end.

    11. Re:Easy Fix by inviolet · · Score: 1

      Nice, you invented the concept of thievery@home. I imagine a print out of lots of vista keys with "wow!" written at the side of one...

      :golf clap:

      So damn witty. Can I offer you a lemon-soaked paper napkin? :)

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    12. Re:Easy Fix by nine-times · · Score: 1

      I wonder if they could scan for license keys and activate them all so that Microsoft can't sell an unactivated key without generating entirely new keys. (a fun prospect)

    13. Re:Easy Fix by ady1 · · Score: 1

      Imagine a beowulf cluster of keys! Sorry, couldn't resist.

    14. Re:Easy Fix by sciprojguy · · Score: 1

      Hmm. I wonder what MS will do about man-in-the-middle interception techniques. I've thought for a while that a major limitation of this type of key scheme is the requirement for an activation server - it wouldn't be very hard to write a small bot that sits on your PC and redirects the activation traffic to a fake activation server. You'd have to reverse-engineer the activation protocols, but that's just time and energy.

    15. Re:Easy Fix by Compholio · · Score: 1

      A botnet could e designed to get the install key and send it back to someone who could maintain a database of valid keys.
      And if it didn't do anything particularly insidious then it could pass off in the background for some time before anyone even noticed, and by the time anyone noticed MS would have a major problem on their hands.
    16. Re:Easy Fix by Windcatcher · · Score: 1

      I give it a week before someone writes a hand-optimized assembler version that runs an order of magnitude faster.

  3. Sounds like a distributed computing project to me by nizo · · Score: 5, Funny

    I can see it now: thousands of computers worldwide activating keys, just to make life miserable for Microsoft and users. It could be called the "annoy Microsoft Windows Users at home" project.

  4. relax by ohzero · · Score: 5, Funny

    I guarantee you MSFT will release a patch to reorder license keys or figure out some other solution. If you were the largest software company in the world, and you had a product that was being touted as "more expensive than switching an entire IT department to OSX:, wouldn't you?

    --
    -- http://www.criticalassets.com
    1. Re:relax by RalphP2 · · Score: 1

      You mean, alter the key algorithyms, just like they did with XP and SP1?

      RTM (or SP0 as it's also called) uses a different key sequence than SP1/SP2 do.

      Which causes those of us who work on customer's machines to discuss Bill Gate's possible ancestry and sexual habits to no end ... since, if you repair with a RTM copy of XP, you'll have to reinstall all the service packs AND updates, but if you use a SP2 CD to do a repair, you can't use the customer's key! And guess what? There's no mark as to which key it IS!

      Anyone have a program that I can toss a key to and it'll tell me the SP it relates to?

      RwP

    2. Re:relax by Marauder2 · · Score: 1

      I have taken a family members Retail RTM Upgrade XP CD that was slipstreamed SP2 after a major upgrade (SP2 is required to for drives over 130G) and had no trouble at all installing or activating.

      SP1 did blacklist a couple of volume keys that were wildly distributed online, as well as change some aspects of activation, but valid keys were not invalidated. That said, OEM, Volume, Full Retail, Upgrade all do have different key algorithms and so it's possible you were trying to use one key with a different type of media (Upgrade/Full, OEM/Retail, etc.)

    3. Re:relax by mnooning · · Score: 1

      I agree. Microsoft will not be left without a good Product Activation scheme. z4 technologies and CHRISM Software are both very small companies with radically different product activation schemes. If worse came to worse Microsoft could just buy one of them out and incorporate the technology.

  5. Perfect by db32 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Seems to me like a great opporunity for a shakedown. "We are sorry, but we cannot help you until we finish an investigation into your software licensing. If you need access you will have to purchase a new copy". They get to play like they are helping by paying a few MS shills to talk about how their cracked license recovery process was quick and painless and they don't understand anyones complaints. Then they get to scare people into walking away and buying new copies!

    I don't have problems with any number of copy protection schemes. Granted they can eventually be defeated almost without fail, but it does rais the bar for the effort. PS disc error thing I think was a fairly clever method for example. I don't even really mind CD keys too much, although its irritating as hell to lose whatever they happened to write the code on (Is it too much to ask to print it on the damned disc?). But I absolutely refuse to touch any piece of software that requires some online activation type crap.

    --
    The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    1. Re:Perfect by rednuhter · · Score: 1

      I hate it when the CD key is printed on the CD.
      1: the font used is usually to small to be read and/or it is confusing for 0 and O (zero and oh) etc.
      2: the damn disk is in the drive when the key prompt comes up nd I spend 3 hours searching in cd cases, boxes and manuals.
      The answer, of course, is to require and activation key to be printed on an A0 poster, start lobbying now !

      --
      ERR 411[Max number of witty sigs reached]
    2. Re:Perfect by db32 · · Score: 1

      I hate when they use stupid fonts for that crap, but that is hardly limited to CD printings. You think you have seen bad with that...go activate a Sidewinder Firewall by manually entering the key. The key is 3 freaking lines long! Try to find the typo in that! I have suffered from problem 2, now I knew the key was on the disc, but didn't have the forsight to write it down before inserting the disk. Its still better than trying to find a 3x4 card, a 2 page manual, or a .5x1 sticker to read the stupid key off of. I have actually been very happy with most laptop mfgs these days for putting the windows key on the bottom of the laptop on that nice sticker. Not that I ever use it, but its nice to know if I really had to fire up VMware or something I have the key with me.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
  6. Adage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The danger of this approach is that sooner or later the key cracker will begin activating legitimate keys purchased by other consumers.
    Well, you know the old saying: "One man's danger is another man's Microsoft Vista Activation Key."
  7. I Call BS by EmperorKagato · · Score: 1

    Registration of new users is temporary disabled! Try again later.

    --
    ----- You know you have ego issues when you register a domain in your name.
    1. Re:I Call BS by EmperorKagato · · Score: 1

      Nm. The forum does not require registration to access.

      --
      ----- You know you have ego issues when you register a domain in your name.
  8. tough questions by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 3, Funny

    To make matters worse, Microsoft will have to decide if it is worth it to allow people to take back legit keys that have been hijacked, or tell customers to go away, we have your money already, read your license agreement and get bent, we owe you nothing.'

    Hmmm, I wonder which way Microsoft will go on this one...

    --
    This guy's the limit!
    1. Re:tough questions by Hebbinator · · Score: 1

      Yeah, i thought that the end of this article summary was a little odd.. propaganda i say!

      why wouldnt a company take a little loss to honor a legit customer's purchase? and who the heck thinks someone would buy two copies of vista if the first one they payed for didnt work??

      don't ascribe silly ideas to a company because you dont like them. i think this kind of pontification on a news website is bad journalism of the highest degree.

    2. Re:tough questions by Nybble's+Byte · · Score: 0

      To make matters worse, Microsoft will have to decide if it is worth it to allow people to take back legit keys that have been hijacked, or tell customers to go away, we have your money already, read your license agreement and get bent, we owe you nothing.'

      Hmmm, I wonder which way Microsoft will go on this one...

      Not to worry. Microsoft will take care of you. In fact they'll even throw in a chair.
  9. Ironically... by jejones · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just as I read this article, pandora.com started playing the title cut from David Wilcox's Vista album:

    "...and the wide open vista..."

  10. Really? by gadzook33 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    It seems unlikely that MS really screwed up this badly. Even given unfettered access to the key validation, it's trivial to construct a scheme wherein the odds of coming up with even a single valid key are essentially zero. If the scheme includes additional hashing to increase the work required plus a large enough key space, you're simply not going to find one.

  11. Re:Er... by Goaway · · Score: 4, Funny

    Why not actually try to read the article to see how the program works?

  12. Not too big of a deal by boxless · · Score: 0

    as someone who has worked on systems such as these (oh the inhumanity!) we have looked at this particular attack vector. Yes, it is possible. But, when you consider the size of the activation code domain (quadrillions or more of combinations), with the number of legitimate keys (hundreds of millions), and the fact that each request takes some amount of time (a few seconds), it's not too big of a risk. A risk? yes. But there are lots of risks. This is just another one to be put on the list, watched, and mitigated against (as others have said, with blocked IPs and so forth).

    1. Re:Not too big of a deal by Goaway · · Score: 1

      Apparerntly, you have not looked at the actual article, though.

    2. Re:Not too big of a deal by walt-sjc · · Score: 1

      Looking at the size of the Windows market, I would bet that the size of the legitimate keyspace is much larger than "hundreds of millions", probably by several orders of magnitude. It has to be large in order for this brute force search to work.

    3. Re:Not too big of a deal by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "as someone who has worked on systems such as these (oh the inhumanity!) we have looked at this particular attack vector. Yes, it is possible. But, when you consider the size of the activation code domain (quadrillions or more of combinations), with the number of legitimate keys (hundreds of millions), and the fact that each request takes some amount of time (a few seconds), it's not too big of a risk. A risk? yes. But there are lots of risks. This is just another one to be put on the list, watched, and mitigated against (as others have said, with blocked IPs and so forth)."

      Obviously someone else who didn't read either the article OR all the other user comments - no net connection required to generate the keys - the attempts to change the key are done locally; after a successful local key change, submit the new key for activation.

      Blocked IPs won't do jack shit for such a scheme.

      Also, you're not trying to find a specific key that works, just one of many, so even with a huge wrong-key space, you'll get a favourable collision with a valid key sooner, rather than later. Its like the same-birthday problem.

    4. Re:Not too big of a deal by east+coast · · Score: 1

      I would bet that the size of the legitimate keyspace is much larger than "hundreds of millions", probably by several orders of magnitude

      Several orders of magnitude? Are you suggesting that there are as many Vista keys as stars in the sky? I don't think this term means what you think it means.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    5. Re:Not too big of a deal by boxless · · Score: 1

      I did read the article. I didn't go to the site the article points to because I would need to create a login. But, if I read the article and take it at face value, it clearly talks about taking the key that has been 'cracked', and the using it to activate, by which the author means try to activate it against MSFTs servers. Why else does the author talk about the legitimate customers being pissed? If this attack required no connection with MSFT, then there is no issue with the legit customers. Their key will work too.

      Just getting the key doesn't solve the problem. You have to get the key, and then get the other side of the pair that goes along with it. Of course, that could be brute forced as well, as I think you're saying. BUT that's not what the author is talking about.

    6. Re:Not too big of a deal by boxless · · Score: 1

      OK
      I stand corrected. I just found the like you're talking about. It's all client side.

      Not much you can do about that.

      Though, regarding those comments about affecting other legitimate users of Vista: it shouldn't affect them.

    7. Re:Not too big of a deal by tomknight · · Score: 2

      Why on earth not? Let's say several could be around five or so. So that's five orders of magnitude, 100,000. So do you really maintain that it's not possible to have 10,000,000 x 100,000 = 1,000,000,000,000 (1 x 10^12) keys? I don't the nature of the Vista licence key, but if they're using 25 alphanumerics that's 35^25 possible keys. That's a big number, c. 4 x 10^38 - now I doubt anyone here knows the ratio of valid keys to possible keys, but I dare say that 1 x 10^12 would fit in...

      So what it come down to is that by attempting to expose someone else's ignorance you merely display your own.

      And I'm sure someone else is about to say roughly the same about me, any time now ;-)

      --
      Oh arse
    8. Re:Not too big of a deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI: Microsoft's keys are 25 alphanumeric characters. For simplicity's sake let's assume each character is worth 5 bits (they don't use uppercase o and i, for example, and case doesn't matter). That means we're looking at approximately 125bit long keys. That's more than 10^37 combinations. Let's say Microsoft issues 10^10 keys (more than people on this planet). Then you're looking at a 10^27 invalid combinations for every valid key. That's approximately 2^89. Let's say you can check a billion keys per second, then you're still looking at more than 30 billion years for one valid key.

      If Microsoft didn't screw it up, this might just be an effective DoS attack on pirates that don't know math.

    9. Re:Not too big of a deal by boxless · · Score: 1

      No one said it can't be done. But, with the brute force required, it's just a risk to be managed. Nothing more, nothing less.

    10. Re:Not too big of a deal by boxless · · Score: 1

      I'll give you 1 order of magnitude more, into the low billions of valid keys.

      And my definition of valid is very specific. Valid means to me: the key is internally valid, meaning it passes its own checksum logic and the OS thinks so (which doesn't imply a successful activation), AND a key that is actually on one of MSFTs activation servers and could be activated.

      There's no reason for there to be any more valid keys (using this definition), then the amount of vista that MSFT expects to ship in the next year or so.

      Do you really think they expect to sell 100's of billions of copies of vista in the next year or so? That's a stretch, even for Ballmer.

    11. Re:Not too big of a deal by Zo0ok · · Score: 1

      more than 30 billion years for one valid key ...presuming they didnt find a qualified (yet brute force) way to guess keys...

      Remember the DVD-crack long ago. The key was 40 bits, but for different reasons the key was in practice just 26 bits. Knowing a bit about the encryption made it possible to not search all keys and a DVD could be read within seconds, not years.

    12. Re:Not too big of a deal by Zo0ok · · Score: 1

      I agree with you but I fail to see how it can be similar to the "same-birthday problem". Did you make a mistake or do you know something about how to search for keys that I dont know about?

    13. Re:Not too big of a deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First of all, 26 bits or even 40 bits are in a very different league from 89 bits per valid key. Second, the article is about a brute-force attack: checking all keys until you find one that works. If someone finds the key generation algorithm including the private key that Microsoft uses, or significant parts of the secret, the game is over. There's no reason to consider it likely that that has or will happen though, because the application is rather simple and the cryptography behind it is well understood. There simply is no need to reveal the secret to anyone. It could be an encapsulated box in Bill Gates' safe, spewing out keys at the touch of a button.

    14. Re:Not too big of a deal by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the math works out to a point but that doesn't make it sound. Why would MS put out a trillion license for something that probably will never go over a couple of billion (tops).

      Or are you claiming that MS is purposely leaving itself open to having keys that are easier to hack by going way over the number they'll ever likely need?

      If your math makes more sense to you than this logic please tell me you don't work in either a security intensive or data storage intensive position.

      BTW: not to be overbearing about my point but you'll also note that the original sentiment was "hundreds of millions", not 10 million. So by your logic that would make it 10^13 as a minimum. Assume that the number is 500 million. that leave a hugh area of potential sales vs. working license. You're just asking to be hacked at that point.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    15. Re:Not too big of a deal by glwtta · · Score: 1

      Do you really think they expect to sell 100's of billions of copies of vista in the next year or so?

      Well, have you seen Aero? It looks fantastic!

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    16. Re:Not too big of a deal by julesh · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the math works out to a point but that doesn't make it sound. Why would MS put out a trillion license for something that probably will never go over a couple of billion (tops).

      Because 10^12 / 10^38 still leaves them with a factor of 10^26 redundancy. Only 1 in 10^26 keys valid ought to be enough to prevent this attack from being feasible.

      But clearly it isn't, so they've actually got more than 10^12 valid licenses, for some bizarre reason.

    17. Re:Not too big of a deal by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      I could see it affecting legit users, in the same way that the "same birthdya paradox" at first seems unlikely. With 100 million users, there are going to be some clashes, and some unhappy (ok, unhappier :-) users.

      Activation doesn't stop the pirates, it just inconveniences the legit customers.

    18. Re:Not too big of a deal by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      ... except that the key doesn't have to be already issued to be valid - it just has to match one that would be generated by Microsofts' algorithm.

      How do you think all those keygens work?

    19. Re:Not too big of a deal by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      BTW - Since we're weeding out keys that wouldn't be generated by the authentication algorythm, the keyspace is much smaller than the 25-char limit ... so collisions aren't just likely, they're inevitable.

      Its like generating hash values for phrase lookup tables. a 32-bit unsigned crc (+4 billion) will not work for even a million phrases - you'll get lots of collisions (yes, I've tested this).

      Now consider - you don't care about the 99.999...% who don't collide ... in a large enough population, even a small percentage is a big problem.

    20. Re:Not too big of a deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you think all those keygens work?

      They don't, unless the developer was lazy or intended it to be broken. This ain't your daddy's key generation algorithm anymore. Create a random number and pretend that that number is a message that you need to prove comes from you, so you sign it with your private key. That creates a longer number, the registration number. Anyone with your public key can verify that you issued that message (registration number). That's the key verification algorithm. The signing algorithm (including the private key) cannot be recreated from the verification algorithm and the public key. Nobody has proven that last bit so far, but all common cryptographic protocols hinge on that assumption, so good luck with writing a key generator for a cryptographic serial number scheme.

    21. Re:Not too big of a deal by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      The idea behind brute-forcing is your algorithm doesn't have to be smart. They can just keep trying combinations on the local machine until one gets accepted, and submit it as the new key. Who cares if it takes a month or two if the machine can go on and do other stuff at the same time? Of course, if you have a botnet kicking around ...

    22. Re:Not too big of a deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the idea behind cryptography is that brute-forcing is infeasible for big enough secrets (keys). If Microsoft issues 100 billion valid keys, there's one valid key for every 425352958651173079329218258 invalid keys. You need to check 82051110850920732895 keys per second to check that many keys in two months. Not. Bloody. Likely.

    23. Re:Not too big of a deal by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Its not a question of haw many valid keys Microsoft issued, as far as brute-forcing is concerned. All that is required is a sequence of leters and numbers that hashes to the same result when the activation code checks it. You don't have to get the "right" key - any sequence that gives the same result is "good enough" and will activate. For example, if "BBBBB CCCCC DDDDD EEEEE FFFFF" hashes to the same value as "12345 67890 12345 67890 12345", they're one and the same, as far as activation is concerned.

      Brute-forcing IS feasible for small strings - and 25 is a small string.

    24. Re:Not too big of a deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      25 is a small string.

      If there are 10^37 possible keys (ca. 32^25) and 10^26 possible hash values, of which only one is accepted (which means that there are 100 billion accepted keys), then you have a 1 in 10^26 chance that a given key is accepted by the hash function. If the acceptance space is bigger, that's a deliberate decision, not a technical necessity.

  13. Botnet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like a great job for a botnet. Distribute the requessts all over the internet. Avoid any IP address limits.

  14. Re:Sounds like a distributed computing project to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    It could be called the "annoy Microsoft Windows Users at home" project.
    AMWUAH project has been renamed "Vista" for consumers' sakes.
  15. Re:Sounds like a distributed computing project to by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Funny

    "I can see it now: thousands of computers worldwide activating keys, just to make life miserable for Microsoft and users. It could be called the "annoy Microsoft Windows Users at home" project."

    Yes, but does it run under linux :-)

  16. Predatory Pricing by toonerh · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Microsoft has encouraged this obviously illegal tactic by its Vista License:
    1) Too many variants
    2) Too expensive an upgrade from XP
    3) Limitation on which versions run virtualized.

    Sadly, for MS, they have not emphasized it can creditably replace a several hundred dollar Nuance Dragon Naturally Speaking install (I know, I've tried both)

    1. Re:Predatory Pricing by leuk_he · · Score: 1

      Actually..

      I don't see the problem with the variants. Ever check how many different distribution of linux there are? Too expensive, sure, but the writer of the keygen is very doubtfule to earn much money with it. And the virtualization issue (not big for most users...) is nowadays only a license issue, i doubt the software limits it currently.

      As for the Nuance Dragon Naturally Speaking.. that still has some value , specially if they keep pointing a niche markets like languages MS does not support fully (lawyer speak eg?)

    2. Re:Predatory Pricing by nuclearpenguins · · Score: 0

      I doubt more than 1% of the public cares about virtualization.

      --
      Anonymous Coward: "This is slashdot. Accuracy is second class citizen here, unlike King Bias."
    3. Re:Predatory Pricing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hang on, I thought this was Slashdot?! You missed two steps there:

      1. Too many variants
      2. Too expensive an upgrade from XP
      3. Limitation on which versions run virtualized.
      4. ...
      5. Profit!
    4. Re:Predatory Pricing by eck011219 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Whoa, now, let's not get carried away. I know this is Slashdot, but you're suggesting that Microsoft is responsible for other people's illegal actions just because of certain aspects of its products are confusing or inconvenient? That's hardly a compelling defense -- it's the corporate version of "stop hitting yourself."

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    5. Re:Predatory Pricing by Virgil+Tibbs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1) Too many variants

      and your saying *nix has what? 2 varients?
      *nix home & *nix professional?
      lets be realistic, varients is not the problem; its features and compatability which is.
      --
      www.tdobson.net #### Dare to Dream #### blog.tdobson.net
    6. Re:Predatory Pricing by phayes · · Score: 1

      I doubt more than 1% of the public cares about virtualization.
      Ask around you how many people would like to be able to easily & reliably roll back their systems to past snapshots (to undo viral damage for example) and migrate their work environment to another PC painlessly. I guarentee that the % of people who are interested will be closer to 50% than to 1%.

      Most people don't care about virtualisation yet because they do not yet understand the benefits. By taking away virtualisation except for Vista ultimate MS has imposed a penalty on the smart people who are ahead of the curve. I don't think I need to explain why doing so is a bad business decision on their part.
      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
  17. Ok, so it's Microsoft... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    it wouldn't suprise anyone if they screwed that up, but it isn't hard to create a key system that makes guessing impractical and generally uncrackable on the key generation side: Just cryptographicly sign random numbers with a private key at MS and verify the resulting registration key with the public key in the program. If the key is much longer than log2 of the number of issued keys, you can try until your grand-grand-grand-children have forgotten you ever existed and not find a real key. That can be circumvented only by disabling the check altogether or by replacing the public key with one to which you know the corresponding private key. But then comes activation and at that point MS can simply check all keys against a database of issued keys. Not only will they be able to find if you're using a key that wouldn't pass offline verification, they will also find if you're using a key which could have been issued but wasn't. You'd have bigger chances winning the lottery and buying a copy of Vista than to find a working key by guessing.

    1. Re:Ok, so it's Microsoft... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't want to buy a product from you. Please enter your product key: MIIBPAIBAAJBAMBuP7bzowVfR9m9KWHpswy4f2CXPA39PT97Vq lB4oWceU8tdXkZ oBa/lBrBOuMdVKc98YvY9LMMiur9nbQlCT0CAwEAAQJBALit1o ZOIym3vOxSqBGp SUavFshrvJ4saYiwZYaBjdXtoDhN/ZO1fEavYaORu4tUkmTqX5 H3x97G5cS+/LrD CWECIQDujRFqsIXdI0JS4oyAf6imFspps0rDUFUZ5hhgvQWEBQ IhAM6BkHYETWFw GBkczuzUXouk/X2H4TAcALbPtjvx2m3ZAiEAuNF0l/sxi1Xg8c Rx5LCDIkLwCZqO JupbNJiPdIud9V0CIA3ZPIHdmf7d0I/mka3qNAjzYJiJgz2Bsz 6PQW5VsstJAiEA qapEe+IkkT3G9oAB3+kL3jFM1z6A+Sjs/5YnVY5e46g= Invalid key. Please re-enter. ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!

  18. Welcome to the non free world. by twitter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't see how this is possible, or credible speculation even for a company a evil as MS...

    Sorry, that's their EULA. You have two choices when you purchase anything M$, return the package unopened for a full refund or use it. They do not and can not promise it will work and they are not responsible for the actions of others. They regard anything they do beyond the EULA a favor for which you should be grateful, just like they regard anything their software ever does for you. They think you should be so grateful that you do as they say. This is the nature of non free software. Your master may take care of you or they may not and those are the conditions you must agree to if you want to use non free software.

    They don't trust you. They made the registration key in the first place to restrict the number of computers you can use before you pay them more. When you call and claim your key does not work, they can't tell the difference between you and someone who's shared their key. Once again, this is the nature of non free software.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:Welcome to the non free world. by bloobloo · · Score: 1

      Of course, those of us who live in the civilised world can not disclaim our rights to a product being as described, of merchantable quality and fit for purpose. Any contract or licence that attempts to exclude these statutory rights is invalid, hence the use of severability clauses.

    2. Re:Welcome to the non free world. by Like2Byte · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You have two choices when you purchase anything M$, return the package unopened for a full refund or use it.


      A while ago I purchased a new computer that I pieced together from OTS parts in a FRY's store in Indy, IN. Well, after their PC people informed me that certain parts would work with other certain parts, after I took it home and assembled it, it didn't work. They gave me wrong memory, wrong power supply, etc... It was a huge screwup. I accept responsibilty for not doing my own homework on the specific parts for the system; but, there was no *WAY* I was going to keep the system after listening to their recommendations and it not work.

      FRY's reluctantly took back all their parts. However, there was one they fought me over. The opened package of Windows XP Professional. Their Customer Service manager fought tooth and nail with me on why they shouldn't take it back and why I told them they *will*. I bickered with them for almost an hour on this one issue. I did not back down one inch. I won.

      I got my money back and they got the opened package back. When you're right, you're right. It's as plain as that. Reach the right people, show them why their process/procedure is FUBAR and you will more than likely receive the correct response.

      However, I wouldn't place bet's that I could do it again.
    3. Re:Welcome to the non free world. by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They regard anything they do beyond the EULA a favor for which you should be grateful, just like they regard anything their software ever does for you. They think you should be so grateful that you do as they say.

      Don't you even feel a little silly about mis-characterizing the attitude of MS employees that way? Even non-evil software companies strive for some limit on their liability and responsibility, because it's just really hard to get complex software to always work. If you were subject to constant lawsuits, you'd be sunk.

      It's true the EULAs are written in the vendors' best interests, and that shrink-wrap licenses should be unenforcible, and that retail software should be subject to fitness-for-purpose laws. But to characterize the MS people as swaggering a$$holes wearing jack-boots and refusing to look up from their lavish meal while you beg before them on your knees is just, well, silly.

    4. Re:Welcome to the non free world. by ghmh · · Score: 1

      Sorry, that's their EULA. You have two choices when you purchase anything M$, return the package unopened for a full refund or use it. They do not and can not promise it will work and they are not responsible for the actions of others. They regard anything they do beyond the EULA a favor for which you should be grateful, just like they regard anything their software ever does for you. They think you should be so grateful that you do as they say. This is the nature of non free software. Your master may take care of you or they may not and those are the conditions you must agree to if you want to use non free software.

      They don't trust you. They made the registration key in the first place to restrict the number of computers you can use before you pay them more. When you call and claim your key does not work, they can't tell the difference between you and someone who's shared their key. Once again, this is the nature of non free software.

      That reminded me of that bit from Good Omens:

      Along with the standard computer warranty agreement which said that if the machine 1) didn't work, 2) didn't do what the expensive advertisement said, 3) electrocuted the immediate neighbourhood, 4) and in fact failed entirely to be inside the expensive box when you opened it, this was expressly, absolutely, implicitly and in no event the fault or responsibility of the manufacturer, that the purchaser should consider himself lucky to be allowed to give his money to the manufacturer, and that any attempt to treat what had just been paid for as the purchaser's own property would result in the attentions of serious men with menacing briefcases and very thin watches.

      Crowley had been extremely impressed with the warranties offered by the computer industry, and had in fact sent a bundle below to the department that drew up the Immortal Soul agreements, with a yellow memo form attached just saying: "Learn, guys."

      - Terry Pratchett & Neil Gaiman, Good Omens

    5. Re:Welcome to the non free world. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      favor for which you should be grateful, just like they regard anything their software ever does for you. They think you should be so grateful that you do as they say.... Your master may take care of you or they may not and those are the conditions you must agree to if you want to use non free software.

      Does creative spelling ("M$", LOLOL) come built-in with silly melodramatic posturing? I'm just asking because your arguments would be slightly more effective without both.

    6. Re:Welcome to the non free world. by julesh · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sorry, that's their EULA. You have two choices when you purchase anything M$, return the package unopened for a full refund or use it. They do not and can not promise it will work and they are not responsible for the actions of others.

      There's this little thing called an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. When you buy something -- anything -- unless it has large letters on the outside of the box saying that it doesn't work, it comes with one. It states that, basically, if you use the product for the purpose for which it is marketed (i.e., with software, try to run it on a computer), it will perform that purpose to at least a basic level.

      It is not legally possible for MS's EULA to disclaim this warranty, it's a basic right that you get when you buy something.

      When you buy something that doesn't meet this warranty, you're entitled to a full refund. Whether you've opened the package or not.

    7. Re:Welcome to the non free world. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I'm still grateful. So very very grateful.

      I'll buy a new laptop tomorrow, in fact.

    8. Re:Welcome to the non free world. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, that's their EULA. You have two choices when you purchase anything M$, return the package unopened for a full refund or use it.


      "By opening this package, you agree to the license contained herein."

      Somehow, I don't think that will hold up in any court.

      P.S. By reading this post, you have agreed with my point, will mod it as +1 insightful, and will not reply to it.
    9. Re:Welcome to the non free world. by twitter · · Score: 1

      Don't you even feel a little silly about mis-characterizing the attitude of MS employees that way?

      No, I don't feel silly. What matters is what they wrote and how they act, not what they say or what you think they feel deep down inside where they long to be free.

      --

      Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    10. Re:Welcome to the non free world. by teamhasnoi · · Score: 1

      They regard anything they do beyond the EULA a favor for which you should be grateful, just like they regard anything their software ever does for you.
      I know I'm grateful whenever their software works.
    11. Re:Welcome to the non free world. by coscarart · · Score: 1
      At least in the US, fitness for a particular purpose requires that you tell the seller what your purpose is, or that your purpose is implied from the circumstances, and generally you don't tell the seller of your software what your purpose will be. In the case of MS and Windows, you would be talking about the implied warranty of Merchantability.

      The interesting question is whether MS, in its shrink wrap agreement, can eliminate the implied warranty of Merchantability, especially considering that most people don't read the license agreement before they buy. This is the classic problem with these sorts of laws, and there is not much legal theory to determine whether these agreements are valid. There is conflicting law throughout the US legal system.

    12. Re:Welcome to the non free world. by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      mod the parent up.

      this is known as 'warranty of merchantability' (there's even a wiki for it).

      if a seller is a professional (ie, not some one-off ebay guy) then if they claim this bit of metal and rubber is meant to be used as a bicycle but it fails to perform in that manner, you can get your money back.

      I recently used this on an issue I had with direct-tv. I had ordered their high-def satellite service and the HR20 (wow, what a mistake!) DVR. in 2 days use of the dvr, it lost 2 shows I wanted to save and the CSR rep basically told me to reinstall or reboot (a 2 day old unit!). checking the dtv forums I found I was FAR from alone on this. I called direct-tv and even though there is supposed to be a 2yr comittment on 'advanced tech' like high dev DVRs, I make it very clear to them that this box is more of a boat anchor than a DVR. by the 'merchantability' clause, I asked to be let out of my contract. maybe I was lucky - but I was let out of it! I returned the DVR and they broke the contract. note that I'm still using their standard-def DVR (an actual real tivo box that has worked almost flawlessly for some 4 years now) - and so I didn't totally cancel out - but I did get out of the 2 yr 'lease'.

      if MS sells you some software and it just plain-out won't run and you have done nothing wrong, I would try to pursue this 'merchantabiliy' thing. it may be the only defense you have (but its a good one since it has lots of precident).

      (IANAL, of course. but you knew that.)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    13. Re:Welcome to the non free world. by Toby_Tyke · · Score: 1

      As I have pointed out elsewhere in this thread, my lack of knowledge on the American legal system is equalled only by my lack of interest in the American legal system, but I do know a thing or two about UK law.

      The interesting question is whether MS, in its shrink wrap agreement, can eliminate the implied warranty of Merchantability, especially considering that most people don't read the license agreement before they buy.

      In the UK, anything the MS EULA says about eliminating the implied warranty of merchantability is completely irrelevant when you ask for a refund, because you will be asking the vendor for the refund, not MS. The validity of EULAs in general aside, they have no bearing on the contract of sale you enter into with the vendor. That contract is formed at the check out in the store, long before anyone sees a EULA, and is subject to all the usual statutes of the sale of goods act.

      requires that you tell the seller what your purpose is, or that your purpose is implied from the circumstances,

      Absolutely correct, but as regards this particular story, this really should not be a problem. I think "installing onto a computer and activating it" is a fairly heavily implied purpose if you are buying a copy of an operating system.

      Just for the record, I once managed to get my money back on a copy of Windows ME in the Leicester branch of PC World. I had to go through two drones and the store manager, but they acquiesced in the end.

      --
      "I realise this is not a very popular opinion but it's the truth, and there for needs to be said" -Bill Hicks
    14. Re:Welcome to the non free world. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realise you just admitted you mis-characterise them, don't you?

  19. Re:Sounds like a distributed computing project to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks to VMWare and Qemu yes, and that's the best place for it ;-)

    Microsoft are fighting an uphill battle here

  20. It's a poor parasite by twitter · · Score: 1

    that kills it's host. Botnet owners would never do anything that stupid.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  21. it is useless by WARM3CH · · Score: 5, Informative

    It seems that this technique doesn't test against the microsoft server, but can tell if a key is valid on the local computer, which would actually be news.
    This is not really that important if a key is validated in a local computer or not. Any key needs to be finally validated by the servers: Out of all possible valid keys that pass the validation on a local computer, only very very tiny number of them are actually keys that have been (or will be) issued by Microsoft. Think of it like this: with 25 symbols for the keys you have a huge huge search space A. Now, this program finds the keys that are valid according to the magic formula that Vista validation system uses. All these keys form a very very tiny subset of A, called B. However, the set of keys that Microsoft has already issued (or will ever issue), set C, is only very very tiny subset of B. This program finds random keys in the B but to actually validate Vista with them, user has to contact Microsoft's servers to see if the key are part of the C or not. This is where the whole things breaks down next to being totally useless. (this is the same story with the CD-Keys of the mutli-player games...)
    1. Re:it is useless by danomac · · Score: 1

      To take this one step further, it's possible that

      a) Microsoft adds more digits
      b) Microsoft makes the keys case-sensitive
      c) Microsoft sets a key entry delay to 15 minutes to make it unpractical to try to force the issue
      d) Some combination of the above.

      Currently there are 36^25 combinations (36 unique values and 25 digits.) Imagine if it was case sensitive and 50 digits (62^50.) Ugh.

  22. seems like a lot of work by pablo_max · · Score: 0, Troll

    really, doesnt this seem like a lot of work to install something that doesnt work as well as what you have now? Just seems silly to bother..

  23. microsoft is sitting back, watching and laughing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most enterprises are waiting until SP1 or SP2 before they even contemplate buying Vista. As Ballmer has stated, the Vista ramp will be slow and long.

    So for the time being, Microsoft is watching what is going on with activation and feeding a new set of requirements into SP1. These new requirements will make the "easy" validation/registration hacks much harder, even possibly eliminating many of the loopholes. Microsoft is losing a bit of money, but not much. The people that don't buy software... are not much of a revenue stream. These requirements also go to Microsoft legal so they can get to work on making more activities illegal.

    Hence, ironically, the only thing hacking Vista is doing is making Microsoft spend more money to change more laws to make all sorts of computer activities into crimes that can be brutally enforced by governments and police forces. By hacking Vista, the only people being helped are at Microsoft while the entire citizenry of the world pays a steep price. And police states are not known to be particularly innovative or supportive of change. So instead of doing anything positive, hacking Vista is merely killing the future.

    If you want to work against the tyranny of Microsoft, the only way to do so is to let go of Microsoft and move to an open source system. Microsoft will have a much more serious problem when all the news is about people moving away from Microsoft, not news of how to get the latest Microsoft DRMware/malware/spyware/NWOware on your machine 'for free'.

  24. Re:Sounds like a distributed computing project to by LionATL · · Score: 1

    When will "Annoy Ultimate" be released?

  25. Funny? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The parent is moderated funny. Well, I have no interest in Vista, but frankly I'd love to activate as many Vista keys as possible in order to make life miserable for anyone using it.

  26. Except we know already what happens by Moraelin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem of generated keys and conflict with legit keys isn't new, so we already know what happens. The same existed for XP -- plus the added collison of dishonest OEM's selling one legit serial number to 100 different people who bought their computers with XP preinstalled -- and we already know what Microsoft chose: to not annoy the paying customers. What it did try to do was go after the OEM's who did that, but _not_ after the victims. The victim never had to do more than call an (automated) telephone number and get another key. It's always been that simple.

    Yes, there have been some fucktards too historically, but MS was sane about it so far. I'm not saying they're saintly or anything, feel free to still be anti-MS if it makes you feel any better. Just that their sane. Even if you want to see them as some kind of super-willain, well, as super-villains go, MS was the _sane_ kind so far. The kind who's read the evil overlord's list, not the random lunatic kind. It knows when _not_ to do something that would damage itself very quickly.

    Look, there are plenty of real reasons to whine about MS, no need to invent bullshit FUD scenarios. That kind of going into bullshit fantasy land, just to have something bad to say about MS, just damages the credibility of the real complaints.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:Except we know already what happens by db32 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1. I have called them for problems with keys. Sometimes they hand a new key over the phone like its nothing, sometimes its flaming hoops of death and hours on hold. Hit or miss with that, but as to be expected from any large corporation that has gone through so many hoops to assume their customers are all criminals.
      2. I'm not saying its some supervillian plan, I am saying this is the kind of horse shit that comes out of large money hungry beurocratic organizations. It's not really MS specific.
      3. I think their product is a tolerable product for some things (right tool for the job stuff). I despise their business practices because the only reason their product IS a tolerable product for some things is because they successfully violated so many laws to make it the defacto standard. They are not innovative, the people who typically think they are have only ever been exposed to MS products and don't realize that the vast majority of the shit they do are poor 'embrace and extend' bastardizations of good ideas that came from other places.

      Ultimately, they are a very large beurocratic money hungry organization with a piss poor track record of behaving ethically. They aren't the only organization like this, but they certainly are one of the biggest. In the meantime I am going to laugh at their horrible mistakes, their losing lawsuits, and the other nonsense monkey boy puts out. Their products are getting worse and they are less of a software giant and more of a comedy club these days anyways. "developers developers developers developers" "fuckign kill google!". I hope chair tossing becomes an olympic sport soon too.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    2. Re:Except we know already what happens by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, they are a money-making bureaucratic organization, but what I'm saying is that not all money-making bureaucratic organizations are created the same. The full spectrum includes not only MS clones, but also IBM, Novell, Red Hat, Google, Apple, Sony, Symantec, debatably even SCO, etc. Some good, some evil, some smart, some stupid, some debatably neither.

      Basically just because someone is out to make money, and may even be _ruthless_ in their pursuit of money, doesn't mean they have to be stupid and self damaging in that pursuit. Shaking down your own customers to pay for yet another copy of the same software they already purchased, is stupid and not very productive. MS knows better than to do that overtly.

      It has nothing to do with having ethics. You'll notice I never said MS had ethics. It just has to do with not being stupid and self-destructive. Lack of ethics doesn't automatically equal being the blatant cackling villain that runs around kicking peons and tying maidens to railroad tracks. The world isn't neatly divided like that. Some courses of actions are simply not worth pursuing, regardless of whether you have ethics or not.

      The most successful unethical people IRL knew when to present a humane face to the masses and maybe even get sympathy. Al Capone opened kitchen soups. Some of the most successful robbers gave a (token) percentage of the loot to local peasants. Etc. You want the masses to think you're a good guy, not the vampire whose castle they should storm with torches and pitchforks.

      So, yes, MS is unethical. No, they won't do something as blatantly stupid as shaking down the victims.

      And here's another insight, since you speak of their track records: MS (or rather its management) always got their jollies out of killing other _companies_, not out of killing the little guy. They're a nasty predator all right, but their diet is based on a whole other kind of prey. So, yes, Ballmer will want to "fucking kill google", not to fucking kill Joe Random whose key got stolen by a generator/trojan/dishonest-OEM/whatever. What they want from Joe Random is simply to continue being a happy little sheep in their pen, and not mind being fleeced regularly.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    3. Re:Except we know already what happens by db32 · · Score: 1

      I would argue that they are incredibly self destructive. Now, I don't think they would be THAT stupid to shakedown their customers quite like that, I just wouldn't be terribly surprised given their pitchfork n torch attitude towards piracy. Read up on the Ernie Ball linux switch, or their raids in japan, they are ruthless bastards when it comes to the licensing stuff...to me it is only a matter of time before they start turning on their customers more. The license says you only get 2 activations before you gotta buy new right? Not too far from that.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
  27. The WOPR?? by Berserker76 · · Score: 1
    I was wondering what he was up to these days.

    They just better not mention anything about Global Thermonuclear War.

  28. Re:Sounds like a distributed computing project to by cswiger2005 · · Score: 1

    I even had mod points, but you were already at +5 Funny (deservedly). I wonder which one, Seti@Home or this WindowsKeyGen@Home, will accumulate more CPU time overall next year...?

    I also wonder if vendors are going to simply give up on using 20 or 25-character long activation codes, if they can be brute-forced in a reasonable period of time? Will they be switching to keyfile activation using hardware profile info (NIC ethernet MACs, motherboard/BIOS serial #, hard drive serial #, etc)? That seems to be happening more and more already...

    --
    "The human race's favorite method for being in control of the facts is to ignore them." -Celia Green
  29. Pirates unite!! by Critical+Facilities · · Score: 1

    we've got to find better bashing material on MS (and I believe there be plenty)

    Aargh, maytee, I too believe there be plenty. Ye OS shall be no match fer me sword, ya scallywag!

  30. How does it work? No chance key collisions I think by goombah99 · · Score: 1
    The keys are nominally 25 digits long. It can try 10,000 keys every 30 minutes. Even if there is some checksum redundancy in the key itself 25 digits, especially if they include alpha characters, is a huge key space. I would have guessed that only a teeny tiny fraction of the key space was allowed but apparently not!

    But I don't see any danger that a cracked key and a legit key would collide in that large a key space. The birthday attack (see wikipedia) tells you the probability of a collision is equivalent to a 12 digit key, which i'd assume must be nearing one in a trillion.

    Since the program obviously has some algorithmic test of the key validity. MS blew it by making this space so promiscuously large that a 20,000key/hour guesser could crack it.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  31. Re:Er... by jam244 · · Score: 1

    Why not actually try to read the article to see how the program works?
    Welcome to Slashdot!
  32. Re:Er... by Alphager · · Score: 1

    Why not actually try to read the article to see how the program works? I wonder who the hell thought this should be modded funny...
  33. Many collisions with legit keys? I doubt it. by dpbsmith · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I just don't believe it. Validation time delays, and long cooling-off periods after too many unsuccessful attempts are such elementary security that I honestly can't believe Microsoft overlooked it.

    Maybe maybe maybe one lucky hacker hit the jackpot and scored one key once or something like that.

    I don't believe for an instant that a brute-force attack on a 25-digit number is going to score many legitimate activation keys that a) have actually been shipped to real customers and b) have not yet been used. There are only a few billions of people in this great world, and there are an awful lot of 25-digit numbers.

    How many brute-force tries were they able to make? Let's say a billion. If they were able to get even one key by brute force in a billion tries, then one-in-a-billion 25-digit numbers must be valid activation keys, or 1^16. If there are ten billion extant copies of Vista, then the chances that a valid key has already been assigned would be one in a million.

    So, of every key found by hackers using brute force, only one in a million will collide with an already-issued key.

    No, this will not be a customer-relations nightmare for Microsoft, regardless of whether they elect to be nice or nasty when it happens.

  34. A bit self-defeating, wouldn't you say? by babbling · · Score: 1

    They don't know who the legitimate customers are. If they just hand out keys to everyone and anyone, what was the point of the system in the first place?

  35. Is this a HOAX? by Zo0ok · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I couldnt find the download. People on Slashdot seems to be unusually confused about how this thing works - even those who claimed to read the article. I didnt find the article/method very confusing, but I dont know enough about Vista to tell if it COULD work or not. Are people confused because someone made something up that can not work? There are other cases where evil people have distributed trojans this way.

    Is this a HOAX?

    1. Re:Is this a HOAX? by Arceliar · · Score: 1

      You can't find the download for legal reasons, not because it doesn't exist.

      Seriously, it's like asking why there's no links to mp3's in all the RIAA related articles that make it here.

      Nobody seems confused to me. The algorithm in question finds mathematically valid keys. Weather or not Microsoft accepts or blocks said keys is a completely different story.

    2. Re:Is this a HOAX? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Just search for "vista brute force keygen" on pretty much any P2P network.

  36. Re:Sounds like a distributed computing project to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't that by definition, Linux?

  37. This has me curious... by jvkjvk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is is possible to create a program that simply activates Vista licenses? -- I mean, without having Vista at all. Just connects to MS and attempts to activate keys, all day long.

    It would be like a DOS on the licensing mechanisms.

  38. Having RTFA... by d3ac0n · · Score: 4, Informative

    AND having gone to the site and read through the ENTIRE thread on their forums;

    What we have here is a random number/letter guesser. It's basically a VB Script that guesses random numbers and letters in a string that is the same length as a Vista Key, then inserts it into the registry, overwriting the existing Vista key. You use Magic Jellybean to check when the key has changed, and then manually check it against MS's activation service. Really this is little more than a person manually sitting down and making key guesses. This is why it's called a "Brute Force" attack. There is no intelligence (ie: an algorithm) behind the key guesses at all.

    That said, because it IS so simple, it's almost impossible for MS to defend against, since they can't just "ban" any keys made by it like they would a traditional algorithmic keygen. Also, there is an improved version of it posted as source on the boards there, so if you want to take a peek at the code you can.

    Here is a link to the forum post in question: http://keznews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2634

    --
    Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    1. Re:Having RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's basically a VB Script that guesses ...

      Wonder if rewriting it into C would make it go much faster (or is there manual intervention that means it only really works as fast as the person therre)

    2. Re:Having RTFA... by Abalamahalamatandra · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It gets better...

      The improved version is a nice rewrite of the routine in question that drops some letters (obvious candidates for a number to letter mixup like "ell" and "ess") and moves some assignments outside the loop - now it's generating 100K+ keys in 16 minutes on an X2 4200+ processor! And saving them to a file as well.

      Things like this are definitely proof that Microsoft simply DOES NOT UNDERSTAND security in any way shape or form. Firstly, having something this important even be available as a VBScript function is positively hilarious, and secondly, not inserting delays in the product key validation routine to foil brute-force attempts is a seriously n00b error.

    3. Re:Having RTFA... by nevek · · Score: 1

      There is a Defense to it - Simply institute a 10 Second Delay in between Key Checks.

  39. Patch coming in 3...2...1 by neaorin · · Score: 1

    Prepare for a patch which forces a cooling period for local key changes...

    1. Re:Patch coming in 3...2...1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That won't solve the problem. The unpatched version is already out there.

    2. Re:Patch coming in 3...2...1 by neaorin · · Score: 1

      Yes but MS could easily make future critical security patches depend on this one being installed... There are already a few known cracks for Vista for which MS has issued patches. You still have the option of not installing them, but for how long?

    3. Re:Patch coming in 3...2...1 by ADRA · · Score: 1

      No no, you're not getting the issue. All someone needs is one unpatched version of the OS to generate everyone else's generated keys. If it really is as easy as Slashdot users say it is, they'd have to write a new authorization algorithm, release a patch for it, support a limited time frame where the un-new patched authorization isn't reauthorized, then then reissue keys to everyone who has a valid license (Most likely through mail order or at retail outlets).

      OR

      They loose the ability to 'effectively' stifle piracy on their newest platform.

      --
      Bye!
  40. Wow, any bias? by WED+Fan · · Score: 1

    From the summary, quoting the article:

    or tell customers to go away, we have your money already, read your license agreement and get bent, we owe you nothing.

    Hell of a nice strawman. Nice job.

    --
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
  41. windows cracks are dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i mean... they continue to spread windows...
    want the new windows version? dont have 500 euros? well, you can always find serials... just as in lots of computer-games.

    or like everybody said "well, wat's the point with hdmi/drm? it will be cracked!"... well, maybe tcpa will teach something, in this case.

    i don't think this is the solution. it leads to more piracy and -worse- more windows users.

    we'll see when everybody has to pay 300 or more euros for theyr windows copy, 'cause they 1-year warranty has expired and theyr computer "is not working".

    microsoft knows this, and of course they permitt this.
    and please, don't come out with "nothing can be cracked". there are systems which are not yet cracked, for example final fantasy cd-keys, or guild wars ones (they are games, but that doesn't matter). If someone today buys a computer, it can permitt himself a 5-minute-gprs-or-whatever connection to verify the licence code.

    governments sould fine big companies that still permitt this, when there are known systems that are not that easy-crackable. or at least should not permitt to those companies to fine a single user for having used a illegal key...

    1. Re:windows cracks are dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      gee...
      too many gr errors on that post :P
      sorry guys, typing fast and at home sick :p

  42. Actually this crack won't help most people.. by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    One poster on the crack forum wrote "5 hours and i got 3 legit keys." at 20K/hour that's only 100,000 tries or 33,000 per key. So apparently despite having a 25 digit key space, Microsoft's algorithmic validity check allows 1 in every 33,000 keys. What where they thinking?

    As I pointed out in the post above the chance of a randomly generated working activation- key colliding with a legitimate keys is probably worse odds than 1 in a trillion. So this will probably never ever happen by chance.

    However, chance might not play a role here. Given this colossal stupidity one also assumes they did something dumb like make the decoded keys have some sort of sequential pattern too, so given enough keys one might be able to figure out how to actually generate keys directly. In that case MS will have a problem with the key-collisions with legitimate keys because people could deliberately generate those.

    Why would deliberately generating legitimate keys be a good idea for a cracker? Well, if you do generate a random activation key, it will activate the product but Microsoft will also be able to determine that it's one that it did not issue. So the moment vista phones home or you try to do a system update, or install any piece of software from MS that can check the key (e.g. office), microsoft is gonna shut your genuine ass down. On the other hand if you were to generate a key that coincided with a legitimate key, then MS won't know you filtched it. So there's an incentive to see if MS also made the patterns predictable.

    You could of course try to live off line. but that level of piracy is not a threat to MS.

    All that said my guess is that this is not possible. If I were creating these keys what I woul dhave done would be to use public key encryption. I'd take the integers 1 to 1 billion, and encrypt them with my private. The the Vista copy caries the public decode key. To validate the vista installer decrypts the user supplied key. If it's a number between 1 and billion, you've been validated. MS can now issue up to 1 billion copies of the software with distinct keys.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Actually this crack won't help most people.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then the obvious crack would be simply to patch your public key over with my own. Ultimately you cannot win.

    2. Re:Actually this crack won't help most people.. by nizo · · Score: 1

      Having not toyed with Microsoft products at this level, I have to wonder how hard it would be to firewall the machine so it can't talk to microsoft, or even better, redirect to a fake local server that tells your box that it is legit?

    3. Re:Actually this crack won't help most people.. by MK_CSGuy · · Score: 1

      Having not toyed with Microsoft products at this level, I have to wonder how hard it would be to
      1) firewall the machine so it can't talk to microsoft,
      or even better,
      2) redirect to a fake local server that tells your box that it is legit?


      1) not hard, but then the verification fails due to "network problems" and cancel the installation process.
      2) nice idea. if I were MS and used the GP's scheme of using public key cryptography then I would sign each copy of my server's response on the server with my private key, thus making the software able to detect with the public key if it is an original response or a fake one.

    4. Re:Actually this crack won't help most people.. by MK_CSGuy · · Score: 1

      If I were creating these keys... MS can now issue up to 1 billion copies of the software with distinct key
      Yes, but it is a lot less than the 24493372044386789716458775771410190.708 keys they can create with their current system (((10 digits + 26 letters)^(25 spaces))/33000).
      With the current high demand for vista they just can't afford to have any less ;)

    5. Re:Actually this crack won't help most people.. by goombah99 · · Score: 1

      what does one do with 0.708'th of a license key ;-)

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    6. Re:Actually this crack won't help most people.. by atamido · · Score: 1

      Someone cracked the XP/2003 private key used to sign product keys. The valid space is actually much smaller than that. You can read about it more here.

      The character "-" does not contain any information, so, the MS product key is composed of 25-digit-character. Microsoft only uses "BCDFGHJKMPQRTVWXY2346789" to encode product key, in order to avoid ambiguous characters (e.g. "I" and "1", "0" and "O"). The quantity of information that a product key contain is at most log(s)24^25 ~ 114bits. The decoded result can be divided into 12bit + 31bit + 62bit + 9bit, and we call theses 4 parts 12bit: OS Family, 31bit: Hash, 62bit: Signature, and 9bit: Prefix.

      Unless they changed the way that keys work with Vista, they could probably do this exact same crack over again and get the new private key. That would make generating new 'valid' keys instantaneous. The problem is that the space is so big that the chances of a collision between a 'valid' key and one MS actually issues is tiny, and because they know every key they ever issued, they can still tell pretty quickly if you are using a valid key or not.

  43. PR's not *that* bad... by AceJohnny · · Score: 2, Funny

    "tell customers to go away, we have your money already, read your license agreement and get bent, we owe you nothing."

    C'mon, let's give'em credit.. their PR isn't as bad as Sony's!
    --
    Misleading titles? Inflammatory blurbs? Keep in mind that Slashdot is a tabloid.
  44. Re:Er... by uberjoe · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Why not actually try to read the article to see how the program works?

    I wonder who the hell thought this should be modded funny...

    You must be new here.

    --

    The days of the digital watch are numbered.

  45. I have to ask by Bullfish · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    If vista is such a piece of crap, why bother trying to pirate it? Also, if the claimed numbers of pirated copies of windows out there are anywhere close to the truth, could the problems those people have be the result of not being able to patch and update their software? Are some people really blaming MS in many cases because their software won't work right when pirated? I ask this because a) some keep saying it is crap, b) I have owned a variety of machines over the years and I never really had the kinds of problems people are complain about (nor have my friends and family) and c) every OS I've used has short comings and annoyances.

  46. Not in the UK by Toby_Tyke · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sorry, that's their EULA. You have two choices when you purchase anything M$, return the package unopened for a full refund or use it.

    That may be the case in the US, but in the UK things work slightly differently. If I buy a copy of Vista from a store and it is faulty, for what ever reason, I can return it to the store for a full refund or a replacement. The legalese is "fit for purpose" and "of merchantable quality". Clearly, a copy of vista with an invalid licence key is not fit for purpose.

    Incidentally, most of the big shrinkwrap software stores in the UK try to get out of doing this if they can. Just be persistent.

    --
    "I realise this is not a very popular opinion but it's the truth, and there for needs to be said" -Bill Hicks
    1. Re:Not in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a long time in the US, Micro Center would let you bring back unopened software. They only have a handful of stores in the nation. 10-15 I think. Probably not true anymore!

    2. Re:Not in the UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry about the funny mod, mis clicked...

    3. Re:Not in the UK by AmigaHeretic · · Score: 1

      That may be the case in the US, but in the UK things work slightly differently. If I buy a copy of Vista from a store and it is faulty, for what ever reason, I can return it to the store for a full refund or a replacement. The legalese is "fit for purpose" and "of merchantable quality". Clearly, a copy of vista with an invalid licence key is not fit for purpose.

      In the US it's simliar, well at least at any large national retail store it is. While software typically cannot be returned if it is opened they will exchange/replace it for a copy of the exact same software title. Same thing goes for CDs & DVDs, you can't return them but you can exchage for the same thing if the copy you got doesn't work.

  47. Hmm.. by blake3737 · · Score: 0

    Does a chair count as brute force?

    1. Re:Hmm.. by coren2000 · · Score: 1

      Are you a brute?

    2. Re:Hmm.. by blake3737 · · Score: 1

      only on the weekends.... =P

  48. This is called ... by pato101 · · Score: 1
    ... a race condition.

    Never hoped to see it in this context, thought.

  49. Ways for MS to handle the problem, seriously by davidwr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If the problem is "small" just track it and write off the loss.

    If the problem is large:
    Have people caught up in the duplicate-key mess photograph their Windows Vista packaging with the key showing in the photograph and send it in.

    For the related problem of duplicate OEM keys, photograph the machine and mail in the make, model, and serial # of the machine and/or the name of the store you bought the license from. This won't help as much with tracking "manila envelope" licenses as those can be traded willy-nilly before the envelope is opened, but it will help with licenses that are assigned to particular manufacturers.

    Give "ownership" to the person with the most convincing photo or purchase history. For the other claimants, if you are nearly 100% sure they are illegitimate sue them or make them provide personal information to get a "new, legal key, on the house" otherwise write off the loss. Pirates aren't as likely as people who think they are legitimate buyers to give out their name and address. If they balk, make a decision: do you want to risk being wrong and wind up in court and lose and get a PR black eye, or do you want to stand by your guns? If you aren't nearly 100% sure, just write it off.

    In any case, if you don't immediately activate the product, at least activate it for 30 days while you decide what to do.

    Even better - scrap the whole activation thing.

    In the future, software will be delivered electronically and every copy will be uniquely watermarked. Yes, you can watermark compiled computer code by inserting NOPs, replacing operations with equivalent operations, etc. Of course this isn't as simple as it sounds as addresses get moved around, but it's doable.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Ways for MS to handle the problem, seriously by kindbud · · Score: 1

      Have people caught up in the duplicate-key mess photograph their Windows Vista packaging with the key showing in the photograph and send it in.

      And if you downloaded Vista from Microsoft?

      Even better - scrap the whole activation thing.

      There you go making sense again.

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    2. Re:Ways for MS to handle the problem, seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can also de-watermark via the same techniques. A scrambled watermark is just as good as no watermark.

      And there's always multiple sources for anything and they will be diffed so it's trivial to determine which files on theoretically identical distributions actually contain identifying information.

  50. Re:Er... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, the whole point is that you CANNOT read from the article how exactly the program works. To find that out you'd have to debug the program or read its source code. Anyone with a link to the source code?

  51. Re:microsoft is sitting back, watching and laughin by Sobrique · · Score: 1
    A lot more enterprises are still considering their roll out of XP. It doesn't give a huge amount more functionality, the license costs suck, and the rollout of _any_ new OS across a large number of users is painful.

    I can see a similar discussion being had about Vista. Home use, they're plugging on ... well, the only reason I'm considering it is my favourite game is going DirectX 10. But the cost of a new license if you _don't_ pay microsoft tax is pretty outrageous, so I might just not bother.

    However for the 'average corp' the upgrade drive is just ego as suits want the 'newest thingy'.

    Thanks to recent developments, linux is just about becoming a viable alternative, as being 'end user friendly'. *shrug* Too many companies are blinkered to the alternatives, but might notice a cost comparison of e.g. 30k users running a well supported linux, vs. 30k users running Vista.

  52. Um, Zonk? by mmalove · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    To make matters worse, Microsoft will have to decide if it is worth it to allow people to take back legit keys that have been hijacked, or tell customers to go away, we have your money already, read your license agreement and get bent, we owe you nothing.'"

    -1 troll much?

    DRM fails for the same reason gun laws fail - the criminals can and will skate around it effortlessly, and the legit users get screwed.

    --
    You can get 15 minutes of fame, but you can go down in history for infamy.
  53. WHO WAS IT?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It would be nice if people who tell these kinds of stories would name the offending party so that the rest of us can avoid them...

    1. Re:WHO WAS IT?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or buy their project in this case: I need a program that does that.

  54. Looooooong keys? by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

    Does this mean that vendors are going to make the pesky product keys even longer? Companies will have to hire data-entry staff just to key them in.

  55. They just ... by JackMeyhoff · · Score: 1

    .. modified the existing VB Script file that was supplied with Vista. More fool MSFT for supplying the code in source form.

    --
    http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
  56. what if? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MS is not stupid. They want this OS to be on all computers. Their goal is world domination. That is why this is happening. It makes Billy happy to have winblows on another machine.

  57. Brute force Crack by gyranthir · · Score: 3, Informative
    There is a brute force algorithm crack for every Microsoft product I have ever seen.

    I saw one at a LAN party that had every copy of windows, every copy of office, and a whole bunch of Microsoft products.

    You would set it and forget it. It would generate a key, test it and then if it was good put it in a log file, if it was bad it would attempt to generate another.

    This kid had a list of probably 1000 WinXp pro keys that had generated just because he was bored.

  58. **yawn** by thanksforthecrabs · · Score: 1

    There are keygens for the last two versions of MS Office and also for Windows XP. This is nothing new.

  59. Microsoft windows and SWI team.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work for Microsoft, yeah, really I do, I really cannot believe we shipped with a VB Script file that is part of the ACTIVATION!!! WTH are the Windows and SWI (Secure Windows Initiative - an internal team with focus on security) thinking! Did they actually Threat model this feature? Did it get signed off by the SWI team? WTH are they smoking. This file should not have gotten signed off and should have been in the threat model and added as a TwC Product Studio item. How the hell can anybody take this company seriously. What a fucking joke the Windows and SWI team are. (I'm not on the Windows or SWI team but we have to threat model our features and get signed off by the SWI team). Fucking ass clowns. I wont even purchase our own Vista product at employee pricing, and I really cannot recommend it to anybody. I really hope they do a huge distributed effort to generated a lot of valid keys. Activation is a pain in the arse as we all know and nobody wants it. We cant even get it working right, securing it and then we have the cheek to tell people that they are thieves? Come on.

  60. This is Poetic Justice by thewils · · Score: 2, Funny

    or Irony or whatever.

    If you need the equivalent of a Cray to run Vista, then it's going to be very efficient at Brute Forcing the keys.

    I like it.

    --
    Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
    1. Re:This is Poetic Justice by dangitman · · Score: 1

      If you need the equivalent of a Cray to run Vista,

      They've finally released Windows Vista: Shellfish edition? Dr. Zoidberg will be most pleased with this news.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
  61. Alternate download link by Soonlar · · Score: 1

    Someone made an alternate download link available http://www.sendspace.com/file/cy9sjx

  62. Also worth nothing... by thanksforthecrabs · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just because the checksum on the key may work, it has to be a key that was actually issued by MS for it to get activated. Lots of trial and error here.

  63. I prefer the old days by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    When software licensing was based on the honor system.

    Honestly this whole key activation thing seems more hassle than those stupid dongles used to verify your software. They used to plug into the parallel or serial port, now they plug into USB. Why can't we just have that, seems less problematic than the current scheme. Especially when you consider that a $4 dongle won't cut into the profits of a $100 OS as badly as 20 minute tech support calls do (which generally cost a company $30 to $150 each)

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:I prefer the old days by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      Except there never was any honour.

      The limiting factor on software piracy in the 1980's was the limited speed of distributing floppies to friends and others. You would go to a floppy swap meet and everyone would go home with a copy of everything there. Or you would upload it a 2400 baud to a BBS.

      With the Internet all this changed. Now, there is virtually no reason for anyone to pay for anything unless they are somehow inclined to give away their hard-earned money. Home users don't pay if they can avoid it. Companies are usually a little more careful about pirated software, but they will try to put one copy on 100 desktops if they can.

      There are no $4 dongles. We are using about the cheapest ones out there for expensive products and they cost $25 each. Good ones, that can really be used for multiple products are more like $50 each. It is next to impossible to justify a dongle for a product less than $200. It also then requires physical shipment. And, dongle-protection isn't impossible to hack, just very difficult.

      If you find a $4 dongle, please let us know.

    2. Re:I prefer the old days by phayes · · Score: 1

      Because using a dongle won't force people into having to buy a new copy of Vista when they change their motherboard the way Vista's current licensing does...

      I don't miss the old serial & // dongles given the problems I had to debug using them, but using USB dongles has been pretty painless.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    3. Re:I prefer the old days by ordovician.cenozoic · · Score: 1

      Who wants to permantently lose USB port to a dongle?

    4. Re:I prefer the old days by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      If you order 10,000 dongles you can get them for under $12 each. It's just a Dallas security processor on a USB connector. roughly equivalent to those smart cards they use for satellite TV, but USB instead of SPI/I2C. I suspect if you order 1 million you could push the cost really low. and even make custom silicon practical.

      the reason you pay $50 each is because you don't have 100,000 customers. (I assume). also the vendors that make the dongles overcharge for what they are, because they also need to pay for the development of their security tools and libraries that go with the devices. (and they have patents on it)

      Dongle protection is far more convenient than online security code, and you could even combine them to track customers to get a good idea how well the dongles are working and if the security needs to be updated in them.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    5. Re:I prefer the old days by POTSandPANS · · Score: 1

      Better yet, who wants that hanging off their laptop? or a chain of them for different programs? or even worse, forgetting them somewhere..

    6. Re:I prefer the old days by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      you can embed a 2-port hub in the dongle cheaply. and you are free to plug the dongle into a hub. My latest motherboard has 6 port on the back, and four more ports out to the case. plus I plug the beast into a hub. I think it would be okay if only one major software company used a dongle.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  64. British-sounding insults by rmckeethen · · Score: 1

    As an American, I can tell you that 'fuckwit', 'bastard', 'cunt', 'moron', 'dickhead' and 'shit for brains' are all in common use here in the States. If you really want to sound British, use 'wanker', 'tosser' or 'spanner'. Also, my limited experience with the BBC seems to indicate that 'Bloody Hell' is very popular in ye olde England.

    1. Re:British-sounding insults by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      A good alternative to "Bloody Hell" is "Ruddy Nora" or in situations "Cripes !"

    2. Re:British-sounding insults by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No-one under the age of about seventy says those things.

    3. Re:British-sounding insults by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1
      Plonker.

      :)

    4. Re:British-sounding insults by sparkz · · Score: 1

      Oh, cripes and bloody Nora, I'd better check my birth certificate, then.

      OTOH, if US/UK are two nations separated by a common language, I'm sure that I've learned more Ameriglish from the internet than anywhere else.

      Other than that, bollocks to the lot of ya.

      --
      Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
    5. Re:British-sounding insults by kabz · · Score: 1

      Help m'boab!!!

      Jings, ye should hae read the Sunday Post!

      Actually, 'pants' is quite a good and clean insult.

      --
      -- "It's not stalking if you're married!" My Wife.
  65. If only copy protection would work by ordovician.cenozoic · · Score: 1

    This is too bad. I had hoped that the Winows Vista copy protection was solid. In fact I hope that all MS software copy protection is unbreakable and a pain in the butt. This way people will be forced to look at alternatives. At the moment Windows and other big software packages has the unfair advantage of being an expensive product that you can get for free (by pirating). If that was not possible people would have to consider other options like Linux or cheap shareware. I wrote more about it here: http://eriksrantsandraves.blogspot.com/2007/02/whe n-rolls-royce-cost-less-than-skoda.html Why I think pirating is imoral and bad for the economy.

  66. Get Bent -- they actually tried this already by fishbowl · · Score: 1

    I had a MSDN subscription that had already been activated. MS reps passed me off in a circular queue for a couple of weeks, going between their support department sending me back to the reseller, and the reseller sending them back to Microsoft. I had to literally threaten to sue them before they gave me a license key.
    I was actually surprised how quickly I got results after I told them that I had decided to file a lawsuit. I was not exactly bluffing, but I also could not have taken it much farther than the initial filing. But I was ready to go to the US Court Of Claims to say that the retailer and Microsoft had together sold me a product which did not work and that both had refused to give me a refund. After certain certified letters reached certain individuals, I got a license key, and for a couple of months afterwards, received occasional calls from Microsoft support folks asking me if my problem was taken care of.

    The lessons I learned:

    1. Microsoft is in denial about their software security system.
    2. Threatening to file a lawsuit against a corporation engenders prompt responses.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  67. What the hell are you doing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My last XP install lasted two years. It only lasted that long because I just built a new PC and transferred the OS to the new box.

    1. Re:What the hell are you doing? by tech_guru5182 · · Score: 1

      I agree. The only time I had to re-install XP was when my hard drive died. (I couldn't even get my slack box to read it)

      --
      BAN BPL! Keep the radio spectrum free fro
  68. more tedious microsoft bashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is really dull now. face facts, vista has shipped, it looks great, and it runs fine. Stop whining kids.

  69. What makes you think an EULA has legal force? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That they include it means nothing. It is pretty certain that, indeed, an EULA doesn't have legal force and can't make you give up rights you normally have. For example:

    I work for a state institution which means in a way I am a part of the state. One of the requirements of the job is that I can't sign any contracts for the state. Anything that requires a signature has to be sent to legal (and we have a hell of a legal team). Employees can't agree to contracts directly. We have, on occasion, gotten software that comes with a written agreement. It is sent to the lawyers, almost totally rewritten, then sent back to the company (who is usually quite surprised). However we've been told not to worry about EULAs or click through agreements. We are allowed to just click ok and go on about our business.

    Now why do you suppose that is? Well it is because the legal team believes that they have no legal force, and thus there's no problem. I'm going to guess they are right, they have to be very careful about protecting the state against things like that.

    So MS can say in their EULA "We reserve the right to take this software away from you at any time," but that doesn't mean a judge will agree. You can still drag them to small claims court (it's quite cheap to file) and argue your case. If a judge agrees with you, they give you your money back.

  70. Re:Er... by Virgil+Tibbs · · Score: 2, Funny

    You must be new here...

    --
    www.tdobson.net #### Dare to Dream #### blog.tdobson.net
  71. How long . . . ? by jarom · · Score: 1

    How long before there is a worm developed which will hammer the Microsoft servers from zombie machines to grab license keys?

    --
    This signature is far too complex to have been created by chance.
    1. Re:How long . . . ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You guys have had years to develop such a worm yet haven't been able to. You do yourself too much credit, me thinks.

  72. phoning home by rucs_hack · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And yet some companies have intituted the same thing with no anger from users.

    Valve managed it, and the rather wonderful prevx malware finder program and SETI@home all require constant contact with home, for example.

    The difference is that these systems deliver customer satisfaction because the phone home service is there as part of the service you require or with to participate in. If you decide not to, you can quit and go elsewhere. Most people using windows don't see that they have a choice (yet).

    Microsofts problem is that their system is one of guilt assumption. They have it solely to check up on customers, it delivers no added value aspect to the consumer. That they say it does is part of the problem. It is for microsoft alone, it gives nothing back.

    No-one cares about microsofts needs, that's human nature, we are all selfish unless giving something away brings a valued return. For them to expect that people would *want* to take part with no benefit to themselves is a pretty hefty misconception.

    I find these issues with Vista interesting. I really do have no intention of ever buying it. I tried it with open mind, thinking I might get it if it brought something new I might like, but there was nothing that interested me. I didn't hate it, but saw nothing of use. It's nowhere near as useful as Linux for my needs, and if I feel a need for a commercial OS, well there's OsX.

    OsX does interest me quite a bit. I've seen many presentations at conferences that were done with macs, and they look *so* good.

    1. Re:phoning home by ADRA · · Score: 1

      The difference is this:
        - seti requires constant server interaction as a basic requirement of how it works. I'm not aware of any invasive data that it uses, but then again I can't say since I don't use it.
        - Steam/WoW, etc.. are supposed to be used for anti-cheater technology. They're protecting your game experience by catching cheaters. Its tech that benefits you for having it run.

      Windows and many other retail offerings on the other hand include this technology purely as a benefit to Microsoft. In fact by all accounts it negatively impacts the end user's experience albeit not severely in most cases.

      There -was- a big stink when Linux WoW players were banned for being 'hackers' when in reality it was just false positives in their hack detection.

      --
      Bye!
    2. Re:phoning home by neil.orourke · · Score: 1

      Why is it wrong for a company to protect it's assets and cash flow?

    3. Re:phoning home by turnipsatemybaby · · Score: 1

      Because it turns into a comparison of morals.

      On the one hand you have a company trying to protect it's assets and cash flow.

      On the other hand this same company's assets cause massive security breaches, inconvenience millions of people who are forced to use it, and inconveniences millions of people who DON'T use it, because of the collateral damage said assets cause. And just to put icing on the cake, they have destroyed competition with predatory contracts on the sly, allowing them to get to the position they are in now.

      IMO, If Microsoft put out quality software, then yes, they have every legitimate right to protect their assets. But they don't. They put out crap software that single-handedly caused 80% of the email you receive to be spam, an amazing amount of viruses that destroy data and leave you prone to identity theft. Their prices have risen dramatically with each successive release, well beyond what one would expect from inflation, for neglegable value.

      What they are doing may be legal, but morally they are completely out to lunch, and THAT is what people are up in arms about. People, for some strange reason, deeply resent being accused of being a pot by someone in a kettle costume. Go figure.

    4. Re:phoning home by seaturnip · · Score: 1

      No-one cares about microsofts needs, that's human nature, we are all selfish unless giving something away brings a valued return. For them to expect that people would *want* to take part with no benefit to themselves is a pretty hefty misconception.

      Not only that, if you have already bought valid Windows licenses, Microsoft doesn't even gain anything from you phoning home! If you hacked your legal copies to remove the activation because you find it inconvenient, Microsoft loses strictly nothing. After all, the feature only serves a use to Microsoft when it catches pirates.

    5. Re:phoning home by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      "a company to protect it's assets and cash flow" is not a valid reason to behave badly.

      There was a time when there were these people that lived in the Southern part of the US. These people often formed companies for their agricultural business. Well, at the time they worked very hard to protect their assets and cash flow. Today, we know that slavery was wrong, and we definitely vilify those people and companies that worked to protect their assets and cash flow.

      Now, I am not suggesting that MS Windows activation is as bad as slavery, but it just goes to show that using the excuse of just trying to protect assets and cash flow is fundamentally flawed.

    6. Re:phoning home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Valve caused no anger? OPEN YOUR EYES

  73. Cancel or allow? by NRISecretAgent · · Score: 1

    We shouldn't be measuring this in whether or not somebody can use their key if it's been cracked already but merely how many hoops is the average consumer going to have to jump through before MS gives up on the whole "activation key" thing or just "cancel/allows" on a case by case basis

  74. Screen saver by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if someone writes a nice screen saver that constantly generates keys AND runs them past the MS servers? What if some group of people think this is funny and run that software all the time just to mess with MS? Just how often will a key bet part of C set? It's a numbers game, and I don't know just how bad it is, I'm just asking.

    1. Re:Screen saver by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      I'm up for a joke :) I'm too lazy to code it, though...

    2. Re:Screen saver by goombah99 · · Score: 1

      with a 25 decimal key, to find a collision would require something on the order of a trillion tries. If the key space is alpha numberic then more. if the key space is heavily (and predictably) shorterned by patterns in the keys (like alternating letters and numbers or checksums, date codes, special activation sets..), then the number could be less. This number also depends modestly on how many keys are issued, so figure that extimate is withing a factor of 1000 of the work load

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  75. I got an analogy for ya... by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

    Your crusade to stop car/computer analogies is like trying to get unionized American autoworkers to realize they're a big part of their own troubles.

    In other words, its just never going to happen.

    --
    Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
  76. Get *ALL* Keys by gers0667 · · Score: 1

    So in theory, if a hacker learned how authentication worked, he could use a botnet to generate keys and activate them. Over time, you could activate a good percentage of Vista's keys. Granted, it would be a long time, but it could be done.

  77. Thank you, I try by Groo+Wanderer · · Score: 1

    Boob isn't British though, try git or wanker.

                  -Charlie

  78. So what u don't have to buy it? by ordovician.cenozoic · · Score: 1

    This is absolutely no excuse. If you don't like the product or the price don't buy it. Get a Mac or use Linux instead.

  79. Sit down, son. (I might have known your mother) by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 3, Informative

    Read the "Surviving the first day of Windows XP".

    Quit downloading everything in your email. If you don't recognize the name, delete it.

    Don't click "Yes" to every security certificate. You should accept Microsoft's, and that's it.

    You don't require new cursors or smiley programs for your emails. The new "Hyper-Exelent Surf 3000 Toolbar by Lucky 88 Company" is not going to make your life easier. Likewise, if you want to know the weather, look outside or in your local paper.

    PC Cleaning programs from pop-up ads don't work. Actually, anything advertised on the Internet should be considered fraudulent. (Yes, even "those" pills. They're just bull semen and corn starch.)

    Get your programs from sourceforge, not from the first link on Google. Make sure that Spybot and Mike's adblocking are installed on your machine.

    The people who write viruses have anti-virus programs to test their work on.

    For the sake of whatever god you believe in, get a hardware firewall!

    Run ShieldsUP! from grc.com to make sure that you're invisible.

    --

    ---
    ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    1. Re:Sit down, son. (I might have known your mother) by AndyST · · Score: 1
      Everything you said is fine, but...

      Run ShieldsUP! from grc.com to make sure that you're invisible. having stealth ports (instead of closed) add nothing on security, and Steve Gibson just talk crap about it. A possible attacker will have the !open and !up information anyway. And that one time you wait for a timeout (instead for "connection refused") costs more than the joy of all ports stealthed.
    2. Re:Sit down, son. (I might have known your mother) by sparkz · · Score: 1

      I was right with you until the mention of GRC.COM. Steve Gibson is a clueless idiot, or if not, he does a damn' good impression of one.

      --
      Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
    3. Re:Sit down, son. (I might have known your mother) by ryanov · · Score: 1

      Then how did he manage to write such good disk recovery software?

    4. Re:Sit down, son. (I might have known your mother) by anilg · · Score: 1

      Run ShieldsUP! from grc.com to make sure that you're invisible. http://attrition.org/errata/charlatan.html#gibson , http://www.grcsucks.com/ give detailed debunking of this charlatan
      --
      http://dilemma.gulecha.org - My philospohical short film.
    5. Re:Sit down, son. (I might have known your mother) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    6. Re:Sit down, son. (I might have known your mother) by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      Based on the links provided and the responses gleaned, ignore the comment about ShieldsUP! You should still check your firewall to make sure you haven't forgotten something.

      The rest is still valid information.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    7. Re:Sit down, son. (I might have known your mother) by mink · · Score: 1

      While he may have some "unique" ideas about port/network issues. There is nothing scammy, false, or fake about Spinrite.

      Get yourself some old MFM or RLL hardware and compare the fun of Debug (Western Digital controler) G=C800:5 and the ease of spinrite. Keep in mind Spinwrite does not wipe your data.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  80. Apparently pointing out racist comments ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    gets you modded a troll these days.

  81. A (Possibly) Necessary Evil by Petersko · · Score: 1

    Throughout this thread there are comments that the authentication mechanism is evil, unnecessary and hurts users.

    Just to play devil's advocate, it's not like Microsoft just arbitrarily decided for no particular reason that the authentication tool was a good idea. They make a for-profit commercial product. Lots and lots and LOTS of people are using it without paying. Whether it's copyright infringement or theft, they are faced with a problem - besides obtaining this product for free, all of these "users" will place a drain on Microsoft's support systems (such as bandwidth).

    Historically they've simply sucked it up, and let these people continue to leech away, but they've put their foot down. What exactly are their options? Dongles? Cracked almost instantly. Serial number alone? Don't make me laugh. I'm not sure how else they would do this, other than to require that they validate the customers serial number against white and black lists.

    If people weren't working so very hard to make this commercial, for-profit product available for free, there would be no need at all for this system. It wouldn't exist.

    Microsoft almost certainly sees this system as a necessary evil. If there were a better way, I'll bet they'd at least listen to it.

    1. Re:A (Possibly) Necessary Evil by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      ..all of these "users" will place a drain on Microsoft's support systems (such as bandwidth). .. What exactly are their options?
      Bittorrent. Externalize the support cost by making the users pay for one another's support. ;-) Just an idea, as I sometimes have fantasies about out-evilling Microsoft (it's a good intellectual exercise).
      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  82. Good for pirates, bad for consumers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What this is going to mean is that Microsoft will toughen up WGA, putting more of a squeeze on legitimate users.

  83. Why not use... by JohnnyOpcode · · Score: 0

    ..your GPU (ATI or nVidia) to bruteforce search the keyspace. Just the other day, I read this article somewhere where AMD was demoing a teraflop PC. You could generate keys for family and friends and give them out as stocking stuffers for Christmas. I think MS should seriously consider dropping the retail/OEM price to some trivial cost point so nobody pirates Vista (or Office). God forbid somebody brute forces Ubuntu activation keys and the herd moves in that direction.

  84. Re:Er... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wow WAHa, lurk moar

  85. Re:How does it work? No chance key collisions I th by mtdisher · · Score: 1

    I've been doing IT work for only 9 years now. I don't know about anyone else, but I've seen a MAC address conflict on a small network (100 network devices), and the cards were from different manufacturers (IBM and Kingston, from what I remember). When I told a coleague about the conflicts he didn't believe me until he saw it himself, so I don't see product key clashes as impossible or even improbable.

  86. Re:Sounds like a distributed computing project to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can see it now: thousands of computers worldwide activating keys, just to make life miserable for Microsoft and users.

    I've got a bunch of VM's that can be devoted to the project.

  87. signed code by davidwr · · Score: 1

    INPUT: raw code, watermarking function, entrophy, signing algorithm and keys
    OUTPUT: watermarked code with digital signature

    Imagine a world 10 years from now with 100,000,000 million copies of the latest version of Windows, each with the same subset of key files that have been watermarked and signed. Suppose one of those files is cmd.exe. Barring breaking into Microsoft, good luck creating a signed, de-watermarked copy of it.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  88. I call BS by Travoltus · · Score: 1

    You made this threat while Bush & the Republican dominated Congress was in power, didn't you?

    With them in power no court in the land would punish MicroSoft for that. Plus you'd be hauled away as a terrorist. After all, you said 'threatened'. :)

    Just kidding!!! No, really, congrats. Now do the right thing and upgrade to Ubuntu or Fedora. :)

    --
    --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
  89. Remote Validation is the problem by Travoltus · · Score: 1

    No operating system has a right to keep phoning home for permission to continue operating.

    Why not infict changes in the OS that will bypass this routine?

    All code can be bypassed. All code. The problem is finding where the activation checks are.

    --
    --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
  90. Several, as in 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Last time I saw the info, Vista only allowed 3 activations. I'd kill that in less than a year on any of my machines. More if I had to call a major vendor tech support and their parallel installs fix virtually everything attitudes.

    So lets see how your logic works:
          You've installed and activated once. (2 remaining)
          Someone steals your key, once. (1 remaining)
          You take it back by re-activating. (0 left)
          Your machine goes toastie. (virus, hd failure, Dell told you to reinstall os, etc). You don't have any activations left. You are screwed. Go buy a new copy of Vista, Billie G goes "Cha-Ching!".

    Not exactly viable in the real world, now is it....

  91. More Likely by logicnazi · · Score: 1

    This article is total BS. I have no doubt that keys that pass the LOCAL validation can be pretty easily guessed. However, this is irrelevant to the issue of key collision which is all about WGA and validation through MS's servers.

    MS can easily keep a second smaller list of the keys that have actually been given out. Then maybe once a day check to see if the key your brute force hack found is a real valid key or just a possible but non-issued key. If so then reset your software to non-genuine.

    In short because the real security mechanism is the online verification MS has complete control over throttling requests and monitoring people who try many keys so this worry just doesn't stand up.

    --

    If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:

  92. The smartest thing for them to do is nothing. by argent · · Score: 1

    Historically they've simply sucked it up, and let these people continue to leech away, but they've put their foot down.

    Historically Microsoft has benefitted from the "pirate domain" because it reduced the demand for alternate operating systems. Why buy DR-DOS, OS-2, or BeOS even when they were cheaper than MS-DOS or Windows when you can get "the real thing" for free?

    What exactly are their options?

    Continue to let some tiny fraction of their immense profits slip through their fingers rather than risk upsetting the punters enough that switching starts to seem like the soft option.

  93. Let's be honest about it by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

    "The person who brute force discovers and uses someone else's code is not the one causing their Copy of Windows to be invalidated. Microsoft is doing that."

    These guys are making the choice to cheat other people for their own benefit. They are soley responsible. It's very likely that these same individuals are guilty of other crimes like phishing, identity theft, etc. They probably get a big laugh over the idea that people actually think they're doing it as blow for freedom or somesuch.

  94. Yes there is. by Rix · · Score: 1

    The GPL requires no management, nor does any other reasonable license, free, open, or proprietary. The honour system is perfectly functional in all ways for this problem.

    1. Re:Yes there is. by monkeydo · · Score: 1

      You don't understand the GPL if you believe that it requires no management.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
  95. I just spent $3000 going OSX and I don't like it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL. Apple makes some great hardware. Stylish etc. That was the draw. And the Ooooh pretty flashy desktop wiz-bang-ness. I thought I would fall in love. Vista was just a cheap knock-off. I wanted a big display and needed a new PC anyways.

    What happens when you hate Finder? Hate iTunes, have no use for the rest of iWhatever was pre-installed? I tried tons of 3rd party alternatives. At this point I'm pissed off. On the Mac it's "Hey man, it just fucking works (or else you are fucked)." It is a lack of configuration options. Little things that maybe I'm a nit-picker but I assumed I'd be able to edit/config somehow someway.

    So I setup bootcamp with XP. It's amazing. 2GB RAM and wow is it ever slick on my 24" iMac display. Really incredible as far as XP is concerned. The first funny quirk, well Bootcamp isn't perfect and sometimes Windows locks up on boot. And Power control isn't so hot inside XP. I can't put the screen to sleep. I set the screensaver to go black. And when I woke up it was sitting on the desktop, screensaver was off. I don't know what/how/why, then the whole system was flakey, explorer wasn't repsonding, had to power cycle, keyboard and mouse quit working, etc...

    So, now I'm going to try "rEFIt". It will allow a triple boot, XP, OSX, and Linux. Just finished downloading Kubuntu 6.10... I may just use it. But I dunno, not having a seperate display that I can just hit the power button really really sucks! I know it's not all a lost cause yet. I plan to get the Apple dev tools and possibly kick their WM out and just use X11 or Xorg. It would be nice to be able to use both open source apps from a project like fink as well as native OSX type of apps in case I want to on the same Xserver.

    But anyways. I'm a switcher. And I'm kind of pissed off. I'm still glad I didn't go to Vista. And if after more tweaking I decide I don't like my Mac, I can still fetch decent money for it on eBay and buy a PC and a seperate LCD. I think of it in sort of a gnome/nautilus sort of way. They're nazi fascists. You don't have a choice in some things. And that's supposed to be a good thing. While XP was temperamental and had crappy security. If you spend enough time tweaking you can get it reasonably secure and stable. And I miss KDE. People say it's too confusing and too many options, etc. just like they said about linux. Yeah maybe it takes some more time and effort to tweak it. But I guess I'm picky because I'm used to having that level of control and tune-ability. I got used to MS for the sake of WinAmp and some stuff like it.

    If I have to kick out the OSX WM and run opensource in order to get the level of control to where I can set it up how I like it. Then there was no point switching to OSX to begin with. This is sort of rambling and a little off topic, but not really, since everyone is bitching about MS and Vista and then saying oh buy a Mac or go linux. I dunno yet. But right now I'm leaning towards dual boot linux+XP, or go virtualize with Xen, or go linux and run XP via VMware. In all fairness I still have a lot of learning and experimenting before I give up on OSX. But as things are out of the box. Once the bling bling wears off I don't like it. And most of the apps it ships with I have no use for personally. And Dashboard and all that other stuff eats tons of RAM and the whole system can get sluggish. And I have 2GB, and I'm not upgrading to 3GB total and spending $550+ on a single 2GB module. Anyways. feedback FWIW...

  96. Need confirmation by Kagami001 · · Score: 1

    The page you linked to doesn't actually support what you said.
    It only talks about volume license users.

    Just to clarify your first paragraph: are you saying that a computer with no internet connection which has Windows Home Basic pre-installed by Dell will require a phone call to Microsoft twice a year to keep working?

    I understand you're just reporting what you heard at the launch event, so not trying to jump on your case personally. :) But I think we need a link with info that applies to OEM/DSP and retail box keys.

  97. "Piracy" is shorthand for "copyright infringement" by Kagami001 · · Score: 1

    I find it extremely silly that people object to the word "piracy." It has a specific meaning in context. It does not "demonize" copyright infringement in any way. It's not making any kind of statement. It's just an abbreviation, because "copyright infringement" is a lot of letters. It means the exact same thing. It's not implying anything else.

    Objecting to equating copyright infringement with theft makes sense and is important.

    Objecting to shorthand slang that is no more negative than the full phrase it stands for is a silly waste of time. (Much like this post I'm making now.)

  98. It's a Hoax by rudy_wayne · · Score: 0

    Sorry folks. But the "Brute force" key generator is a hoax. A fraud. Just another attempt to get people to run a virus-infected file. And lots of people are falling for it.

    But don't take my word for it. Download is for yourself. Included in the zip file are:

    slmgr.vbs - an (allegedly) modified version of the program used to activate Windows. In reality it does nothing.
    keyfinder.exe - supposedly the "Magic JellyBean" key finder but in reality a trojan.

    The whole point of this scam is:

    1. run slmgr.vbs (which in reality does nothing)
    2. wait a few hours
    3. run the keyfinder to see if a new key was generated and when you do -- *BAM* you're infected.

    Anyone who claims that they generated a new key with this program is a liar and probably in on the scam.

  99. Re:"Piracy" is shorthand for "copyright infringeme by vux984 · · Score: 1

    I find it extremely silly that people object to the word "piracy." It has a specific meaning in context. t does not "demonize" copyright infringement in any way.

    You are ok with creating a distinction between infringement and theft, but think piracy which, in a lay person's mind, implies theft is ok? I think that is a tad silly.

    I think the term piracy is demonization, to the extent that it suggests 'organized criminal activity', which really is the main threat to corporate interests.

    ie - a group in china creating counterfeit MS windows discs complete with keys, and holographic stickers is a 'software pirate'.

    Installing the copy of Windows XP Home edition that came with your dell into that used PC you got free from work when they upgraded the LAN might be infringement (though it might even be fair use despite the EULA) but it isn't 'software piracy'.

    To really overdo it, lumping both those groups into one term and then saying piracy = copyright infringement is somewhat akin to grouping say 'people with brownish skin' and 'fundamentalist islamic extremists' into one group and then equating that with 'terrorists'. And absurd as it is, it happened, and so we end up with completely innocent people in secret prisons facing torture. Don't chew me out yet, because as over-the-top as that is, consider this:

    In the world of 'piracy', we end up with computer illiterate elderly women being dragged through the courts on the presumption they owe the recording industry a few hundred million bucks for the remorseless and obscene damage they've dealt to these American mega-corporations. ;)

    cheers

  100. Oh, for the love of .... by debest · · Score: 1

    My latest problem with linux was last month when I decided to download the latest Fedora ISO to install on an old P3 500 box I had sitting in the closet. Guess what? It couldn't even get more than about 20 seconds into the installation process!

    *Why* do some people always seem to think that the best way to evaluate Linux is to attempt to install the latest (and most demanding) distros on some old heap of junk they have lying around? When there are LiveCD distros these days, there is NO REASON to not give Linux a whirl on your modern PC that you are currently using to run Windows. None!

    Do you seriously think Vista would suck because it would fail to install on your old P3 500 (according to Microsoft, it doesn't meet minimum requirements)? Why the puzzlement that Linux's "latest and greatest" won't work on your crap, when I think you know darned well that Microsoft's "latest and greatest" wouldn't work, either.
    --
    Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
  101. Somone Please Explain How MSFT Coders Can Do This by SRA8 · · Score: 1

    MSFT has a lot of smart coders, and yet things like this keep happenning. There are probably even many MSFT coders on this message board, dont they absorb some best practices? How is it they never learn?

  102. Re:Sounds like a distributed computing project to by CrkHead · · Score: 1
    We normally call those computers "bots".

    What's the guess for time 'till trojan?

  103. Fear mongering... by CaptainTux · · Score: 1
    To make matters worse, Microsoft will have to decide if it is worth it to allow people to take back legit keys that have been hijacked, or tell customers to go away, we have your money already, read your license agreement and get bent, we owe you nothing.'

    While I am not a MS fan I do think the statement above could legitimately classified as "fear mongering". Microsoft is a business and one of the functions of a business is to satisfy (or at least look like they are trying to satisfy) their customers. I highly doubt that they would alienate a huge amount of their customer base over a few thousand or hundred thousand illegitimate activations. Doing so would be suicide on their part because it would spark a giant "Oh my god, what if that had been US" within the large business community that Microsoft serves. Large corporate customers would seriously start looking at alternatives because they would see a situation where they might potentially be left out in the cold should they buy a copy of Windows and it's activation has already been used.

    This is going to be a bad situation for Microsoft. But it's not going to cause them to tell their customers "screw off".

    --
    Anthony Papillion
    Advanced Data Concepts, Inc.
    "Quality Custom Software and IT Services"
  104. Impress me, not oppress me. by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

    In free society every other agency, government or otherwise needs a legal process be it search warrant or reasonable cause to enter my property and inspect my goods and chattels to see if they are stolen / are licensed.

    It has been long determined that "plenty of people like you steal stuff, we're coming in to have a look round" is not sufficient legal grounds and that when agents act otherwise it is called "oppression".

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    1. Re:Impress me, not oppress me. by Danga · · Score: 1

      The thing is there is NOTHING forcing a user to get validated if they don't want to. BUT if you want easy access to the Windows updates ie going to the Windows update webpage then you will have to validate. Validating a license for support reasons does not seem unreasonable to me at all. A user can get the updates other ways and install them manually if they really wish so there ARE other options if you don't want to be validated.

      Now, if your computer would lock up if you refused to get validated that would be one thing (and a horrible thing at that) but that is not how it works.

      --
      Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
    2. Re:Impress me, not oppress me. by Danga · · Score: 1

      It has been long determined that "plenty of people like you steal stuff, we're coming in to have a look round" is not sufficient legal grounds and that when agents act otherwise it is called "oppression".

      I agree with this statement but I don't believe it applies to Windows validation. I think Windows validation is more like what happens when I take my watch to the place I bought it from that said they would give me free service on it whenever I needed that service. Well a couple of months after I got the watch the wristband had a problem so I went back to the store and before they would service the watch they either needed the receipt or if you had let them put the serial number in their database then they could use that too so they could verify you did purchase the watch at their store and you weren't just some random person trying to get free service. Do you think this type of checking is over the top too?

      That is all that Windows validation does and while it would be great if they could just do it once and never again I can use my brain and figure out why they must periodically check and having to click a couple buttons 2 times a year to be able to access Windows updates does not seem out of line to me.

      --
      Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
  105. Re:"Piracy" is shorthand for "copyright infringeme by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

    just because the old lady is computer illiterate does not excuse her from not being knowledgeable about the law. As I painfully found out, even if a speed limit is not posted on stretches of road you have access(and can exit from) to it can still be enforced and its your fault for not being informed about it.

    copyright infringement is a pretty simple concept. if you didn't buy it, its not yours to freely use. While that maxim doesn't encompass every case, it sure as heck covers lots of ground. Now, if the problem is the infringement is being pinned on an elderly lady when a family member actually engaged in the infringement, well, that just sucks. But that is why there is a court system in existence. people get charged with crimes and then declared not guilty all the time. its part of the process.

    Now, the real problem I have is with there not being a blanket law saying that if you sue someone and lose you are liable for their legal expenses. What the MPAA and RIAA do is extortion simply because it is cheaper to pay their 3 grand than get a lawyer and attempt to let the legal system work how it was intended to.

  106. Author is unaware of how Vista activation works. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First of all, the author admits to never installing Vista, so why does he think that MS is screwed over all of this? He's obviously under the impression that Vista shares the same type of DRM structure of XP. Well, it's a bit different these days...

  107. Analogy is not proof by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

    "If Microsoft decides to revoke that license because of something Pete Pirate did, who is at fault for Microsoft's actions - Pete or Microsoft ?"

    Pete, of course. Pete knows that his actions will deny a legitimate user's use of the OS but goes ahead anyway.

    "Or to put it another way: If you steal from me, and that makes me so angry that I kill a random bystander, does that make you a murderer ?"

    Or to put it yet another way: If you implement a way to protect your IP and some random guy steals your customer's key, does that make you responsible for your customer's inability to run the software?

    "Violating software's copyright may or may not be immoral, but in either case it in no way makes the violator responsible for the actions of the party who's copyrights were violated."

    I can say something similiar: Protecting your IP may or may not be immoral, but in either case in no way makes the vendor responsible for the actions of an individual who is pirating software.

    See these analogies or restatements or our opinions prove nothing.

    1. Re:Analogy is not proof by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Pete, of course. Pete knows that his actions will deny a legitimate user's use of the OS but goes ahead anyway.

      If you will not change your point of view, and publicly announce it here, I'm going to pick a little old lady at random and beat her up. So you'd better hurry up and post the announcement, or you'll be responsible for elder abuse by your own logic. After all, the lady got hurt because you refused to acknowledge me being right.

      Pete Pirate is responsible for his own actions - violating Microsoft's copyright - but not Microsoft's response - revoking innocent third partie's licenses. Making Pete responsible for Microsoft's response would mean that any suitably ruthless party can blackmail you by treatening third parties, since you'd be responsible for whatever they'd do in response to you defying them.

      Or to put it yet another way: If you implement a way to protect your IP and some random guy steals your customer's key, does that make you responsible for your customer's inability to run the software?

      Yes, of course it does. It was you who revoked the innocent user's license and disabled his software, after all. You are responsible for your own actions, no matter what your motive for them might be.

      As a side note, I'm really starting to get sick of how IP has become the sacred cow it is nowadays, who's protection is justification for just about anything. Why on Earth did you think that you could simply disable someone's software and not be responsible for it just because you were "protecting your IP" ? The whole idea is absurd.

      I can say something similiar: Protecting your IP may or may not be immoral, but in either case in no way makes the vendor responsible for the actions of an individual who is pirating software.

      I didn't say it did. However, the vendor is responsible for his own actions, even if they were taken in response to the actions of the pirate; if the actions of the vendor end up harming innocent third parties - such as revoking their legitimate software licenses - it is the vendor, not pirate, who is at fault.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    2. Re:Analogy is not proof by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      The relevent criminal behavior of Pete isn't violating copyright, it's stealing the key.

    3. Re:Analogy is not proof by ultranova · · Score: 1

      The relevent criminal behavior of Pete isn't violating copyright, it's stealing the key.

      Actually to be exact Pete is not stealing the key or even copying it, he's guessing it for the purposes of circumventing an effective access-control device and therefore violating the DMCA. What a filthy criminal.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    4. Re:Analogy is not proof by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      He wouldn't live long enough to guess the key. He's using a program to steal it.

  108. Re:"Piracy" is shorthand for "copyright infringeme by vux984 · · Score: 1

    just because the old lady is computer illiterate does not excuse her from not being knowledgeable about the law.

    True.

    The difference is that speed limits were written with the intent that it apply even to ignorant drivers, and drivers who exceeded the limit even by accident, and the penalties reflect that. (There are a ton of problems with it, especially as we move to automatic enforcement, so don't get me wrong, I think speeding laws need a complete overhaul, but that's a separate argument.)

    With copyright infringment however, this situation wasn't foreseeable; the laws were written mostly to combat organized criminal activity. And they were designed to scale up, so that large scale infringers got hit with massive fines.

    It was unthinkable when the law was drafted that a little old lady could be completely unwittingly responsible for 10's of thousands of counts of copyright infringement, or that this could be a common everyday occurrence. Yet its happened and these little out ladies are being targeted with lawsuits that would have been approriate for large scale cd counterfeiting rings. They are entirely inappropriate for unwitting old women.

    As for the RIAA/MPAA extortion tactics, they are wrong for TWO reasons. First, as you observed, the legal expenses involved are high, and its much easier to settle than to fight. But ALSO, and more importantly, because the lawsuits being brought against these people are entirely inappropriate in the first place. And with hundreds of thousands of dollars on the line and few precedents the stakes are MUCH too high for the average person to gamble on the courts which must judge you based on the law, not on the appropriateness of the law.

    For example, if the law were updated to state that it was illegal for an individual not part of an organized piracy ring to run a p2p app sharing copy protected works without authorization, and the fine was $100, $500, $1000, or $2000 or $5000 depending on the size of the collection and the circumstances, that would be appropriate. If a person was charged, and felt she was innocent, she could fight it. It would be small claims court and wouldn't cost that much. The **AA could still go after large file sharers with punishments high enough to act as real deterrent, but gross miscarriages of justice would be avoided.

    Of course, much harsher penalties and laws would still exist for large scale organized criminal piracy.

  109. Re:microsoft is sitting back, watching and laughin by Biffa · · Score: 1

    It's interesting that you propose that hacking Vista will only make Microsoft more evil and cause them to lobby governments to make computer activities illegal and that these new laws will be brutally enforced by a police state.

    The interesting part is that you propose open source software as the silver bullet against the tyranny of Microsoft. Using your logic, if the world started moving to OSS in a stampede, wouldn't Microsoft lobby to make OSS illegal? Will we ever see the headline "Microsoft Overturns The GPL!" on slashdot?

  110. I understand it perfectly well by Rix · · Score: 1

    Please, enlighten me as to what you seem to think an end user of GPLed binaries is obligated to do.

  111. Where do I sign up for Anti-MS Cult by Neurodetonal · · Score: 1

    "being there to enable OTHER programs to work" Is that part of the definition of an OS or what? I got one... is that like a stove allows you to cook food, but you don't actually eat the stove? "eating up network bandwidth and administration resources" You don't possibly manage a network, do you?