Slashdot Mirror
Windows Vista Keygen a Hoax
An anonymous reader writes "The author of the Windows Vista keygen that was reported yesterday has admitted that the program does not actually work. Here is the initial announcement of the original release of the keygen, and here is the followup post in which the same author acknowledges that the program is fake. Apparently, the keygen program does legitimately attack Windows Vista keys via brute force, but the chances of success are too low for this to be a practical method. Quote from the author: 'Everyone who said they got a key is probably lying or mistaken!'"
Quote from the author: 'Everyone who said they got a key is probably lying or mistaken!'"
Oh sure. Next I suppose you're going to tell me that the guy who claims he ordered (and received) a 37" LCD TV for $7.99 due to a price mistake is lying, too. Or the kid who swore he put a Beta tape in a VHS deck and it played...Don't you have any faith in people anymore?
OEM_BIOS_Emulation_Toolkit_For_Microsoft_Windows_V ista_X86.v1.0-PARADOXThis has been floating around for a few minutes now, and according to the history of this group, i guess this is a bulletproof solution ..
But i don't know what will be the impact for online upgrades since i don't use Vista myself.
.. doesnt somebody actually create a distributed brute force on Windows activation. How many windows machinès in the world? That adds up to some pretty powerful attack.
http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
The 25 digit key is in base 36 (0-9 plus A-Z), providing 8.08281277e+38 possible keys, without accounting for various error checking and validation schemes
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
I see no reason why they even have an algorithm to check whether
a key is valid before submitting it to their server for signing.
If I were them I would do what prepaid mobile phone has been doing
for years: generate completely random keys and at the signing server
end just check if that key is in the database and if it's not already
used. If that's the case then all they would have to do is sign the
key and the computer configuration and return that to the client code
that would in turn check if the signature is valid.
That way there would be no way to brute force keys because they have
control over the validation server and can put a stop to that and there
is no key validation code exposed from which someone might derive a
key generator or at least get hints at how the keys are distributed
in key space.
Based on calculations in the other thread discussing this, we reckoned that if MS hadn't been stupid designing the key system, you'd have to try somewhere in the region of (IIRC) 10^17 keys before getting one that works. Now we can discard the "evidence" that suggested they had been stupid, this is back to being our baseline assumption. Based on speed-of-trial stats reported there, this would take a 65K-node botnet around 14 years to crack a single key.
You, kind sir, may be expecting SP1 to actually fix the first round of bugs.
... both are equally valid options)
I, on the other hand, do not.
(Or I fucked up the post
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.