Ubuntu Linux Validates As Genuine Windows

bobbocanfly writes "Another crack in the Windows Genuine Advantage wall. A user at UbuntuForums.org managed to validate an Ubuntu installation as a genuine copy of Microsoft Windows and get to the download page of Windows Defender, using IE4Linux and Wine. (Here is an OGG video of the process.) Along with the advancement of LiveCD technology, this could spell the end of Microsoft's control over who gets their updates."

Comments

Yeah, damn Microsoft

[QuantumG]

and their desire that only their customers have access to their updates.

Next up: "Please enter your credit card number" - Windows Update.

Re:Yeah, damn Microsoft

[alisson]

Heh, would it be such a bad thing?

On M$'s end, they're a business. If you don't give them money, why do you think they should be giving you free updates? You're not a customer, you're not going to be a customer, so it's only ever so slightly in their interest to keep you on the platform. Do you realistically think the third party software is going to disappear just because windows doesn't provide updates to people who don't pay?

On the pirate's end, who cares? When was the last update that was worth downloading?

Re:Yeah, damn Microsoft

[QuantumG]

Yeah, cause it's not the consumer's fault for choosing to buy a product after it has been shown time and again to be faulty.

Re:Yeah, damn Microsoft

[Hrothgar The Great]

Why would you expect it to work correctly in the first place if you hadn't paid for it, in which case they DO give you free updates?

Are you seriously complaining because your illegal software doesn't function correctly?

Guess again...

[ari_j]

This might put an end to Microsoft using current techniques to control who gets their updates. If you push them hard enough, they will end up making the whole process a lot more intrusive than WGA already is. After all, they don't have to give you free updates at all and, if they care enough about this, they'll start charging you monthly fees for your Windows Update account.

Re:Guess again...

[Mr_eX9]

I think Joe Average would sooner go without updates to his operating system than pay for them.

Perhaps if MS would roll out new versions of its OS more often than once every 5 years this wouldn't be such a problem...

Re:Guess again...

[rbanffy]

I am sorry to break your apple-bashing delusion but there are a lot of upgrades between those so called point-releases. 10.4 is great and 10.5 seems to be a major overhaul.

But that's OK. Stay with your Windows box. I don't care.

"This could spell the end of Microsoft's control"?

[popo]

> "This could spell the end of Microsoft's control.."

Please. They'll update the security.

Will there eventually be another way around? Yes. Of course.

Next story please.

I hope so

[ericrost]

If Microsoft goes too far with taking control of computers away from consumers (as they did for me with Vista, only been using linux 6 months) they'll just drive more consumers to Linux, which makes me smile.

Re:I hope so

[robot_love]

I hear this sentiment echoed a lot on Slashdot, and I believe it is fundamentally flawed.

You are assuming a few things that, once laid bare, I believe you will find non-sensical.

1. Microsoft will do something that will hurt its bottom line.

Do you really believe this? I find it unlikely.

2. Microsoft is doing something stupid.

Microsoft has the money to attract the brightest minds in the world. Do you honestly believe that no one at Microsoft has considered the point you just raised? Isn't it more likely that they have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars studying your argument very carefully, with the brightest and best lawyers and managers and business strategists scrutinizing every possible contingency?

3. If Microsoft is wrong, they will keep doing the wrong action until the company folds.

This is the one that most people slip up on. Bearing in mind that (1) Microsoft will never do anything to hurt its bottom line, and (2) the best minds are constantly analyzing what Microsoft is doing, you'd better believe that (3) if they started to screw up, they would change direction.

In conclusion: Microsoft will continue to add hindrances to piracy, even if they inconvenience customers. They are very carefully watching customer reaction, and will only change any policy when these customers stop buying. The fact that Microsoft continues to effect increasingly draconian controls indicates that the public does not care. Yet.

This is bad for linux

[astrashe]

I'd rather see bulletproof license control for commercial software.

If everyone who ran pirated software used open source instead, our user base would be several times as it is now. And that would encourage hardware vendors to give us better support, which is the main thing we need now.

Oh, great

[Dasher42]

Now Microsoft label Linux users as pirates, when one of the big benefits of free software is not to pirate, or even have to if you're poor.

Re:"This could spell the end of Microsoft's contro

[Bender0x7D1]

I'm guessing that WGA is set to return "genuine" if it is unable to retrieve the appropriate information. For example, it might try 5 times to get the product key, but the system always gives it an error since it doesn't actually have a product key. Since they can't get enough information to determine if you are genuine or not, they err on the side of caution and say you are genuine, even though they can't tell.

I thought WGA...

[Actually, I do RTFA]

... was designed to find pirated versions of windows. Why would they care if a linux user can download the updates. He's not the target. It's the people and companies with fake copies and either don't know it or don't want to go through the trouble of downloading a version of each patch that the WGA step will get to buy Windows. So it probably worked to specs, and probably works via blacklisting rather than whitelisting (easier to disassemble a whitelist for one).

I know its bad form here to defend anything from M$, or announce that a story doesn't really mean their emminet death, but remember that WGA is just another step like serials designed to increase the geekiness or effort required for someone to pirate a copy.

Just like DRM. I mean, you can always use a professional quality camera to capture the movie, and put each output speaker in an anachoic chamber with its own high quality mike. The point of DRM and WGA is to make it hard enough that it's not worth saving the $10 (for bad movies) - $400 (for Vista Ultimate SuperDeluxe w. CoffeeMaker ) after all the effort.

Re:I thought WGA...

[Jimmy King]

There are plenty of things to dig Microsoft about, but I'm afraid there's no delicious irony in an Ubuntu user validating their copy as Windows.

Other than that being able to validate as genuine windows doesn't mean anything. What's to stop these same manufacturers that MS is trying to stop from just using one of the many ways around WGA on each of the computers they sell or install at the office?

Honestly, I have my doubts that it's really that big of a problem. I can't imagine that happens much outside of mom and pop shops that aren't exactly selling thousands or even hundreds of new computers per day.

So the thought is: you (or your mom, or gramma) buy a PC from one of these guys, you find out that they sold you a computer with a bogus copy of Windows, and you no longer do business with them. And you tell your friends, and they don't do business with them.

And the person who thought they legitimately paid for everything is stuck unable to get updates they may want and paid for unless they buy Windows again. Awesome.

While within their rights to do, it's stupid and only hurts the valid users in the end, which is really what most people's complaint is. Personally, I'm going to keep right on complaining about it.

Not likely

[No Tears In The End]

this could spell the end of Microsoft's control over who gets their updates.

More like, this spells the end of another battle in Microsoft's war to control the world.

More will be coming.

NTITE

Re:"This could spell the end of Microsoft's contro

[Darundal]

I doubt that, considering how many false positives Microsoft manages to get with WGA.

Re:I hope so-Fruit juice.

[Heembo]

Or Apple. Which makes ME smile even more. But should't Apple be most Linux fans' nightmare?

1) Proprietary system that is only in small part, OSS
2) Standard PC hardware with fancy plastic that is much more overpriced than the same hardware minus fancy plastic
3) A OS that is more expensive over it's life that even Winblows - and Apple CURRENTLY charges serious coin for major OS updates
4) A secure coding and patch release methodology that is *years* behind MS
5) Apple regularly lies about the performance capabilities of its' machines
6) Apple uses Solaris and Windows (Apple china ran it until 03) because of their superior stability compared to OS X.

Linux shall set you free, Apple will only drag you into Job's reality distortion field.

And what exactly IS the point...

[Savage-Rabbit]

And what exactly IS the point of validating Ubuntu or whatever as genuine windows anyway??? The point is that it's a very nerdy thing to do. Whether it actually makes sense to do it is a secondary concern. Besides, Linux being validated as 'Genuine Windows' is pretty damn funny so the humor value alone is another good reason to do it.

Embrace and extend language

[Dirtside]

I really hate the whole "Genuine" part of the name. They're using "genuine" to mean "licensed", because as everyone knows, the only difference between the copy of XP my roommate bought from the store and the copy of XP I burned from his legit CD is that his copy is legally licensed and mine's not. They're bit-for-bit identical and there is no way to tell the difference.

I know the intent is to find the nefarious PC sellers who buy one copy of XP and install it on every machine they sell, but I'm still getting the exact same sequence of bits on my hard drive in that case that I would have if the nefarious PC seller had actually bought a license for each computer he sold.

Fundamentally, it's an attempt to conflate information "property" with physical property in the minds of the public -- even though we know that a "non-genuine" copy of Windows is bit-identical and functionally identical to a "genuine" copy, MS wants people to think that a non-genuine copy has something wrong with it. There IS a legitimate concern about illegit copies that have been modified to include spyware/viruses/etc., but it's entirely possible for such a copy to pass as "genuine" since the software that validates "genuine"-ness won't always know about malicious software (especially if said software is specifically designed to hide from WGA...).

I'm not against copyright and licensing (I'm in favor of much shorter copyright durations, and yes, I produce copyrighted material for a living), but I AM against this attempt to abuse the language.

DMCA

[sunderland56]

This sounds like a very bad idea; TFA is practically begging for Microsoft to file DMCA legal action against Ubuntu.

They

• Accessed a proprietary server
• Had no authorization to do so
• Bypassed all access controls
• Reverse engineered the validation handshaking mechanism

Re:DMCA

[kidcharles]

How did Ubuntu do any of those things? First off, it was the user who accessed the server. All he or she did was go through the process exactly as one would if they were using Windows, so when exactly did the bypassing of access controls and reverse engineering occur? Also, the software used is not special to Ubuntu. How exactly would Canonical be liable for anything?

Re:I hope so-Fruit juice.

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

"1) Proprietary system that is only in small part, OSS" I can agree there.

"2) Standard PC hardware with fancy plastic that is much more overpriced than the same hardware minus fancy plastic" You're going by old info. You can configure a Dell and an Apple with the same specs and the prices are quite close.

"3) A OS that is more expensive over it's life that even Winblows - and Apple CURRENTLY charges serious coin for major OS updates" $129 is serious coin? And remember, this is for the MAJOR updates. Also, they're lax on the DRM, since you usually have to have the hardware to run the OS.

"4) A secure coding and patch release methodology that is *years* behind MS" Patch and release when it's found, not once a month?

"5) Apple regularly lies about the performance capabilities of its' machines" For example? I'd love to see some examples here.

"6) Apple uses Solaris and Windows (Apple china ran it until 03) because of their superior stability compared to OS X." Proof please.

All in all, you're arguing against the Apple that no longer exists.

Rights matter.

[ushering05401]

Microsoft is not taking control away from users... Users are agreeing to MS terms when they purchase the product, therefore they are *giving* control to MS.

If your concern was control, then you were using the wrong OS from the start. Show me the version of a MS operating system that gave you more control than Vista, or that you were free to modify. If anything, UAC allows you to programatically control your system more so than ever before.

Anyhow, any person that believes the GPL should be respected (as I do) also needs to respect the TOS that MS sets forth.

You might notice, however, if you read the article, that we are both OT right now.

Just thought I would raise a point.

Regards.

Re:Rights matter.

[SiChemist]

The GPL and Microsoft's EULA are NOT equivalent. The GPL regulates copying the software(well established copyright law), not use. As far as I know, the use licenses (like Microsoft's EULA and others) do not have the same standing under the law. The GPL ONLY covers copying and is actually very permissive when compared to most commercial copyright licenses.

As far as respecting the EULA, I wonder if it's even a valid contract. As I understand it, most contracts require both parties agree to the terms BEFORE the transaction (purchasing the software) takes place.

Re:Rights matter.

[caseih]

Don't mistake the MS EULA (TOS) with the purpose of the GPL. The GPL governs *distribution* not use. Microsoft's purpose behind the TOS and EULA is to control what you can do with a piece of software to their own benefit. The purpose of the GPL is to make sure the end user has the power to modify and redistribute the software. The GPL says nothing about the use of the software. In fact as long as you're not distributing the code, you don't have to accept the GPL in anyway. This is dramatically different in purpose. You cannot redistribute MS's code without accepting the terms of a costly source code license, which is similar in purpose to the GPL.

I have complete control of my computer in every way by virtue of the fact that I *own* it. Putting Microsoft software on that piece of hardware removes control from me of my own computer. I also have to give up the right to modify (disassemble, etc) Microsoft's code once it is on my computer. Compare that to GPL'd software which generally are of the purpose to enable and empower my freedom to use my own hardware.

So your statement is based on the fallacy that the MS EULA or TOS serves the same purpose as the GPL. It does not.

Re:Rights matter.

[UncleFluffy]

Anyhow, any person that believes the GPL should be respected (as I do) also needs to respect the TOS that MS sets forth.

Agreeing to the GPL gives you more rights than you would otherwise have had. Agreeing to the MS TOS gives you less rights than you would otherwise have had.

That's a fairly significant difference.

Re:Dual boot machine?

[choongiri]

It would not surprise me, though, if the test machine was dual boot and WGA properly validated the available Windows system.

It would surprise me.

For most intents and purposes Wine sandboxes applications from the rest of the machine reasonably effectively. For the WGA software to be able to detect a copy of Windows elsewhere on the machine it would have to be checking it was running under wine then taking deliberate measures to break out of the sandbox. It's possible, since wine is not a VM, but quite unlikely - after all, the entire idea of WGA is that Microsoft wants people downloading updates to be using them on a genuine copy of Windows. If you have Windows on the machine already, why would you be dual booting into Linux and running wine to access Windows Update? That would make no sense, and Microsoft making that possible by design would make even less sense.

Re:I hope so-Fruit juice.

[Penguin Follower]

$129 is still cheap compared to $399 for Vista Ultimate, which is what we have to compare against since Apple has one version of OS X and not Home/Home Premium/etc....

Re:I hope so-Fruit juice.

[tomhudson]

"agree with a lot of what you said, I just have to chip in that for someone working a minimum wage job (or even, in my case, a job that's significantly above minimum wage but still depressingly low), $129 *IS* a lot of money.... at the federal minimum wage, after tax, that could end up being almost a weeks pay, which is pretty painful for someone on a budget :("

In which case they have more pressing needs than an update to an iMac ... and they're better off with older, free hardware and a copy of linux or BSD.

Re:I hope so-Fruit juice.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, and if you want a feature of bigfix that Apple isn't interested in providing? I'll be damn glad to be allowed to pay a consultant to add that feature or fix for me in my OSS system. You can bawl your eyes out and stamp your feet to Daddy Steve until you're blue in the face.

Re:Would they really?

[Chandon Seldon]

Most people I know who pirate Windows and Windows software don't consider Linux as an interesting alternative because "Windows is free too and has free games". If Windows really cost $100 and Office really cost $300 and Photoshop really cost $400 then a lot of them would think that Ubuntu was the obvious choice - going for Windows + Software would double the cost of the computer. Hell, for that money most of them would figure out how to run their WoW and COD3 under Wine.

Re:I hope so-Fruit juice.

[Bill_the_Engineer]

But should't Apple be most Linux fans' nightmare?

Should any OS be a Linux fan's nightmare? Why should we care? I recently switch to Mac OS X and I have no complaints... Oh maybe that is what you mean, an OS that is feature complete (joke. Well... a little joke... OK maybe it's too close to the truth..). I did switch when I bought my MacBook Pro and am currently happy with my choice.

My point is that I still use Linux for work and I do contribute to the OSS effort when my employer allows, and I don't think Linux has many outside threats. I do think it has some internal ones, but they seem to be fading away.

I don't care if you use Linux, Windows, Mac OS, etc., but I am amused to see people with no lives that do care what other people use.

1)... 2)...

FUD. Others on this thread have already done a decent job countering those...

Linux shall set you free, Apple will only drag you into Job's reality distortion field.

It looks like someone is in a distortion field, and this time I don't thinks it belongs to Jobs...

Seriously, stop drinking the bong water. Lighten up a little, and stop trying to get "street cred" by mouthing off nonsense.