Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft WGA Phones Home Even When Told No
Aviran writes "When you start WGA setup and get to the license agreement page but decided NOT to install the highly controversial WGA component and cancel the installation, the setup program will send information stored in your registry and the fact that you choose not to install WGA back to Microsoft's servers."
notepad %windir%\system32\drivers\etc\hosts
127.0.0.1 genuine.microsoft.com
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
Ethics. If you choose not to install something, it shouldn't do anything.
Yay, I believe RMS's essay on treacherous computing may apply here. Not to start an argument over RMS and his stance with open source and free software. But i believe we should all have the right if you use windows to know what they are sending. I use gnu/linux so i really don't affect me much.
You chose to install the Windows Update ActiveX control, didn't you? And you clicked "I agree" when it told you it could send this info to Microsoft, didn't you? So why would you be angry when it does exactly that? Perhaps people need to read the licensing agreements they agree to before agreeing to them, instead of just clicking "yes, I agree" like a madman.
Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
Seems you haven't read the past story about MS bypassing HOSTS file for microsoft sites.
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
While many think this is bad and invasion of privacy, think of it as this:
when we normally click "I DONT Agree" the software does nothing. But if it sends the message back home with statistics of how many dont agree, it tells the software company some people dont agree.
We can argue EULA's till our fingers are raw and bloody, but it doesnt matter if the company in question doesnt read the conversations.
In short, by clicking the Dont agree button and having it sent home to MS we're telling them we dont want that crap on our machines. Maybe (deity willing) MS will start to listen. More companies may adopt that approach and we'll get less and less one sided (retarded) EULA's.
anyone Remember Borland's |"like a book" EULA? Great stuff.
Interesting you say it's slashdotted because I can read it fine.
It's very light on details, however. There is a screenshot from wordpad of the data sent; it's an XML-type document which appears to have pulled a couple of id/hash numbers out of the system registry, e.g. OS version, but no personal info. They can't really get any personal info anyway, since data protection laws here in the UK and other countries would land them in shite, and also I suspect that they have more important things to do than snoop random people's names.
Personally, I think that they're just trying to get an idea of the number of people who won't install it. These people either have pirate copies and know they'll fail validation, or simply are opposed to the idea of their OS phoning home. From a cynical viewpoint, it's important for MS to gauge the reaction to this early so they know how far they can push these sorts of thing without there being a massive backlash.
Don't you just hate it when people reply to your signature?
This is kinda old, but some years ago my neighbor got a new Win ME (!!!) machine, and I helped him put in a NIC and put it on our little neighborhood network. I was curious if it was going to phone home, so I had a sniffer running on my router...
The damn thing picked/guessed a valid (NATted) IP address, netmask, and gateway without using DHCP (arp tricks?), and sent a load of mystery packets to an address in a Microsoft IP block. Only then did the computer do the "new device detected" routine, but could not find a driver for the NIC and I had to go fetch one on another machine.
W T F ?
Unfortunately I have since lost the pcap dump.
Moderation: -1, no proof
Ya, that would fix it. Maybe, just maybe, some of us don't have an army of lawyers at our disposal to determine if what we're clicking on really means what we think it means. It seems to me that it is unethical to have a consumer product license that is unreadable/unparsable to an average consumer. The "madman" here would be anyone who thought that such nonsense was an enforceable contract.
I am not a crackpot.
That Free Markets religion again. Businesses cannot do anything they like; they are corporations, fictional entities created by license of the people of the country through their government. They are granted super-powers as non-existent individuals, exempting real operators from liablity for their own actions. In return, they hew the line we set for them. They have more responsibilty to the nation that created them other than pleasing shareholders, no matter what propoganda they pump to the contrary. They are not gods. And Microsoft is a monopoly, ruled so by the courts, and is under even more stringent strictures, because they have constantly abused their power in the past to invade and hold new markets.
So, no, making money is not all they have to worry about. Deceit and chicanery should have consequences other than making them more money. And if they need to cheat to win, it might be time to think about a new concept: revoking the corporate license, and reinstituting personal responsibility for their underhanded actions, with civil and criminal penalties.
Sounds like a perfect place to use MS speech recgonition:
Computer: "Where do you want to go today?"
You: "Nowhere."
C: "I heard 'Microsoft Validation Site'. Is this correct?"
Y: "No!"
C: "I'm sorry. I heard 'Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete all'. Is this correct?"
Y: "NO!!"
C: "I understand. So 'Microsoft Validation Site' was correct. Redirecting now. Thank you for using My Microsoft Live Enterprise Genuine Advantage Ultimate. Have a nice day."
so let me get this straight. the ID that identifies your installation is there, and you don't recognize all of the other information, so you concluded that there doesn't be any identification of the user?
Truly, your intellect is astonishing.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So, how hard might it be to generate random but valid data to fill out this XML? And then have a little daemon that does nothing but post it over and over 24/7? "Wow. Looks like a NAT/proxy server with millions of users behind it who really don't like WGA."
Petty, I know, but fun.
Pound! Bang! Bin! Bash! is this a shell script or a Batman comic?
it is unethical to have a consumer product license that is unreadable/unparsable to an average consumer.
Oh my fucking god.
Have you ever tried to read the GPL?
We're not sending anything. Trust us.
Oh, you checked, did you?
Then what we meant to say was... it's nothing to worry about.
Trust us.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I have no idea, but it looks like some sort of unique id.
n g
an image from the now slashdotted page is here, it shows what gets sent to MS
http://img266.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wgahp5.p
Signature v3.0, now with 42% less memory usage.
Yeah, and?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
You chose to install the Windows Update ActiveX control, didn't you? And you clicked "I agree" when it told you it could send this info to Microsoft, didn't you? So why would you be angry when it does exactly that? Perhaps people need to read the licensing agreements they agree to before agreeing to them, instead of just clicking "yes, I agree" like a madman.
Okay, despite your trollish comments, I'll bite.
1. WGA != Windows Update. RTFA.
2. Has the validity of an EULA ever been tested? AFAIK, an EULA cannot violate your privacy rights, even if you sign those away. Argue as you like, statute always trumps contracts.
3. Microsoft releases an OS that's broken and tells you the only way they'll fix it is if you'll subject yourself to their privacy terms. Not freaking cool. My copy of Windows is paid for, but that doesn't mean I want them invading my privacy.
Ever installed XP without any service packs? Do you know how many minutes it takes before the machine is pwn3d? IMO that's not a functional OS any more.
Ever tried getting that refund from your hardware manufacturer for the part of your purchase that went to Microsoft? It's a freaking pain in the arse, and one where you have to usually drag a vendor to small claims court to get your money.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
I can understand people not wanting WGA on their PC-s as it can cause issues on legitimate installations as well, in certain situations.
But sending back a little XML that you denied the EULA? Don't you detect hypocrisy here. You send your "identification" in the form of IP, browser user agent string and what not to virtually any site you visit, without "agreeing" to this every time. Why is nobody whining about this?
Having privacy and right to deny something is cool. But I think some of the most vocal opposition is simply using pirated Windows and not being honest about it.
I don't install WGA on existing (legit) computers as it doesn't help me with anything. I don't have any problem with Microsoft getting my "no" back though. In fact, I *want* them to hear my no.
This should be reported to "StopBadware.org". StopBadware.org's definition of badware requires prior consent to send personally identifiable information to a site. This should be enough to put WGA on the Badware list.
Google is now flagging sites that have been identified by StopBadware.
StopBadware is run by law professors from Harvard and Oxford, with assistance from Consumer Reports. StopBadware is effective. They complained about the Jessica Simpson screensaver, which installed spyware in May 2006. The makers of that didn't listen. In October of 2006, a US federal judge shut that outfit down.
I refused to install WGA for a long time for several reasons, not the least was the fact that it was marked in the EULA as BETA software. Why should I be forced to install software that MS admits hasn't been fully tested yet? I have enough problems with MS bugs. Also, I resent the implication that I have to constantly prove that my software was purchased legally. I've always paid for the software I use, even when I was a poor college student.
Most copies of Windows in the U.S. are paid for, because Windows comes installed, by default, on almost every retail machine sold. That alone makes piracy a non-issue in the U.S. However, WGA does give Microsoft a way to shut down every Windows computer connected to the Internet. What a scam. Once they've got everyone using WGA, they can start dictating terms to governments instead of dealing with irritating lawsuits.
Lets say that the kind souls at MS never even think of using WGA as leverage on say, Europe. I still think it's possible for a clever hacker to use WGA to do some real damage. The hacker would have to do some DNS spoofing and probably crack some encryption, but then, that's what these guys do. Whose to say someone might not use WGA to pull off the biggest Denial of Service extortion in history? Perhaps I'm a bit paranoid, but my caution has kept me from ever having one of my computers compromised.
Piracy is a problem, but not nearly as big a problem as MS would have us believe. If people are stealing you blind, you don't make billions of dollars in profits, you lose money. If MS is feeling a pinch lately, it's due to their own foolish policies and assumptions that they would be able to dictate terms to the world forever. Google Apps and Open Source software will, hopefully, eliminate the need to put our computers at risk simply because a company is greedy.
Microsoft seems to believe that if there were no piracy, everyone in the third world who is now stealing their software would pay for it instead. Yeah right. One of the reasons they steal it is because there is no way they could possibly pay for it. If MS ever finds a way to shut down piracy, it will merely hasten the move to Linux in 3rd world countries. Ironically, that will speed the demise of Windows.
-All that is gold does not glitter - Tolkien
www.ra
You could look at it that way, but I think that's kinda a warped view of the GPL.
BSD license is all well and good, but if it wasn't for the GPL there wouldn't be so many people involved in development of GPL software. Your view does have some merit, but not because of selfishness. Novell doesn't want Microsoft to take their code, put it in Windows, and blast Novell away again. Red Hat doesn't want IBM to secretly switch AIX to all Linux code, and sell it for a mint, and never give anything back. So, that's understood, and everyone can feel free to develop the code base without worrying about it. Your payment for being able to use everyone else's work (and saving a lot of money by doing so) is to also release your improvements to everyone else. So your PROFIT is the improvements you get back on the code you wrote.
It should be noted that the big companies pushing Linux actually do turn a bit of a profit, in terms of cash.
The GPL *is* about supporting the community. If a piece of software is community developed, that same community (as well as anyone that uses it) really wants the software to improve. If ACME Corporation wants to use the software in their product, because it would be a LOT cheaper then developing in-house, they'll take it, improve it, and package it with their product. In the meantime, they'll also make their improvements available to everyone else. That's their payment for saving millions in licensing or development. How is this selfish?
If you don't want to release your code under the GPL, then simply don't. If you don't LIKE the GPL, then don't use GPL code, it's as simple as that. Or, are you pissed that you can't just do whatever you want with someone else's work?
The GPL, in fact, does allow a lot more freedom for the code you write then general copyright laws allow for. It's obviously a lot more open then closed-source. Why must you compare it to the BSD license? (Extra Points: If the BSD License worked so well, why did it take the GPL to bring open source software to the forefront? Explain and cite references.)
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
The only home software on my computers should have is my home
Sounds like someone set you up the bomb.
In the UK, at least, it would appear to be in breach of Section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990:
1 -- (1) A person is guilty of an offence if--
(a)he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer;
(b)the access he intends to secure is unauthorised; and
(c)he knows at the time he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case.
The data sent home is noted by (a). As the user has expressly not agreed to the WGA EULA, unauthorised access is noted by (b) and (c) - in particular (c) as there was no agreemnt to the EULA; assuming of course that the data sent home is that that would be sent home IFF the EULA had been agreed and WGA installed.
As an aside, the Sony rootkit that installed something even when the EULA or whatever was decined was probably in breach of Section 3 of the same Act - doing "...any act which causes an unauthorised modification of the contents of any computer..." - those discs weren't sold in the UK?
The question is who is the responsible entity for a company: they have programmers that have written the code that does the unauthorised access (are they responsible), or is it their managers (who defined the specs) or the company as a whole (the directors)?
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet;
A chrysanthemum by any other name would be easier to spell
MS owns the software, you do not. It is what you agreed to. MS has always done this and will continue to do more. If they stop in one place it will pop up again. The simple fact is, there is truth in saying that you are owned. Whether it is is by MS or by a cracker (from any number of avenues on the windows platform), you are till owned.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Foolish is what Ballmer is made of. He claimed to financial analysts that the caution on Vista sales is for at least 2 reasons: 1) corporate pricing was too low, and 2) piracy.
This was stated by him in the past couple days, if not today.
Both are flawed. on item 1. Windows Vista is very expensive. Giving forecasts on certain pricing to corporate is what companies do. They forecast on those prices so that is really a moot point unless corporate just isn't purchasing. Then the low cost would make a difference, as they feel they should have made it higher so that the lack of corporate sales didn't affect the bottom line so much.
On item 2. According to Microsoft pirating is impossible under Vista. Well, even if that is about 3 months outdated it still is an issue that needs to be addressed. What is the average number of pirated installs vs. legit installs of Vista. Are people choosing to pirate instead of purchasing? Is it easy for the average person to pirate Vista and is the future potential of loosing activation worth it to the average user?
The answer to those is unknown so Microsoft can't be using that as a legitimate reason why their forecasts are so far off. Even if it was EASY to pirate Vista (which Microsoft said 3 months ago was impossible) it would have to be much easier than to pirate XP, which although is semi-easy to pirate if you can get the corporate product key or you can snatch a key from some unsuspecting person it is possible to get locked out by virtue of the WGA/WGN spyware programs.
So, essentially it isn't possible to claim that corporate pricing and pirating is the cause of Ballmer's and Microsoft's woes. It has to be something else. That something else, at least to me, is pretty obvious. It is the restrictions on use, the violation of privacy (constantly claiming you are a thief -- incessant checking of your workstation using spyware programs (WGA/WGN)), the high cost to the consumer (parts as well as purchase price of Vista).
When I talk to people, and I do so every day as I own a computer repair shop, I hear that they want nothing to do with Vista. I even have people that bring in the computers they bought with Vista on them to have them wiped and to have XP installed instead. The reasons they give are the same I read about day in and day out on the web. Microsoft accuses them of being a thief, Microsoft is spying on them, the technology in it will interfere, the costs to upgrade are too high, the cost of the OS is excessive, there's no compelling reason to upgrade. Vista is just a pretty interface on top of a massive spyware program.
I'd have to say that Ballmer is very foolish and to try to pawn off on the financial community two very flawed reasons for Vistas lack of success is just pathetic. Microsoft is on a downhill slide. The fact that Linux and OSX just might be made valid viable attractive has to be affecting every thing they do. On top of that they have known for a couple years that Microsoft would not see growth anywhere near what it has seen in the past. I think one could forecast some very serious financial problems with Microsoft in the next couple years and that they need to get people switched over to Vista so they can better control your computer and purchases so that the major stock holders have time to divest themselves and reinvest in other arenas.
Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer are killing Microsoft. Every DRM/CRM implementation makes Windows a lot less attractive to everyone. Every attempt to monitor our use is looked upon as a violation of our privacy (which it is) and is an accusation that we are a thief or will be a thief sometime down the road. When they don't care that they are invading our homes we realize they are too far gone to even consider giving a second chance. When they can use their monopoly power to extort business, other countries, and private citizens then that's the time everyone must look up and say "no". They know they have you by the short ones because they know that i
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.