Slashdot Mirror
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."
and their desire that only their customers have access to their updates.
Next up: "Please enter your credit card number" - Windows Update.
How we know is more important than what we know.
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.
> "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.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
Does this mean that I can validate Ubuntu using my XP CD?
Oh wait...
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.
My Babylon
WGA has become pretty sophisticated this year, as recently has OGA. I strongly suspect that the observed behavior is by design, though Microsoft may now choose to change it.
You kidding me? That's more interesting than anything else. I'd love to see *why* it does that, and *how*.
For one thing, WGA is supposed to check Product key, PC manufacturer, Windows version, PID/SID, BIOS information, BIOS MD5 Checksum, Language setting and version, and Hard drive serial number, among other things.
Since your winver and product key don't technically exist (I believe the former comes up as Win 98), I don't see how WGA gets a false positive in this case (which means it's also going to be an easy bug to track down).
But, theoretically, since xubuntu doesn't need a 'valid' key, it may throw random numbers out (which would be very unlikely to trip the 'pirated' check, but would mean WGA doesn't check if your key is valid.
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
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.
With earlier versions of Windows, prior to Windows XP, you can download any and all updates without having to validate your Windows.
"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."
Or Apple. Which makes ME smile even more.
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.
Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
... 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.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
My 0.02 cents
Microsoft has every right to limit updates to valid licences. I don't understand how this is "good news". Well, apart from the "MS sucks again, ahaha" angle.
We complain that there is a MS tax. We complain that they hardsell licences. I would be very happy is Microsoft really had a way to limit the updates. Hell, even with Linux one *pays* for the updates in some distros, and there is nothing wrong with that. Plus, if piracy beneficts Microsoft - and it does - putting an end to it is all the better. Windows is "cheap" because many people are used to cracking all the software they have installed and then complaining about "there isn't a program in Linux/BSD that does *everything* I need and exactly the way I need".
Could be useful for people like my dad - he uses Linux for the internet stuff (and gimp) but boots in Windows (no internet connection for that) to use Excel etc. He doesn't want to expent the effort to keep Windows secure, but he might still want an update for a driver or something like that.
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/08/ 2343248 2005 reference to the same thing.
MS is looking for copies of XP that are nongenuine. Think of it as a negative return check, not a positive return check. The fact that it passed means that MS is fairly certain you're not running a pirated copy of XP (which is correct), NOT that MS is fairly certain you're running a valid version of XP.
I've always used Windiz Update as an alternative to Windows Update.
whats even more interesting is this, ubuntu versus some [possibly] major other distributions...
feel free to berate me on not including the distro of your choice, (but add your own findings if you have any...
www.tdobson.net #### Dare to Dream #### blog.tdobson.net
He was talking about WGA, not fucking driver problems. :-p
On the same (?) topic, I ate a hamburger today.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
I doubt that, considering how many false positives Microsoft manages to get with WGA.
WTF, I still can't even get my genuine copy of Windows to validate as genuine Windows.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
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.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
They
Maybe they special case Ubuntu. E.g. consider.
...
/ 01/1573160.aspx#1582487
Windows Developer: We tested Ubuntu with IE4Linux and we can catch it. It claims to be Win98 and it doesn't have the undocumented secret handshake to check for validity. And it hides the Bios too. If you look at the CS values Wine uses the same selector but you can't use that. But if you look at CS:Hardcoded_offset then all versions of Windows have some code that is not present in Wine. So we check for that.
Lawyer: Hmm. Could they change Wine so it passes
Windows Developer: Yeah, they could just set up a copy of the code code in Windows so the check is fooled. But that code is protected by copyright and patents.
Lawyer. So we release code that depends on undocumented details, they reverse engineer and fix and we sue them? Excuse me, I need to make a phone call.
Lawyer. Take the code out.
Windows Developer. What? I spent all night writing that! Then we'd authenticate Linux as genuine Windows. Why do we have to provide updates to people that didn't buy the software?
It's actually the same case as the AARD code which the lawyers got the developers to disable in the release build. Probably they could detect Wine and Ubuntu using undocumented details but the problem is that it would be artificial tieing updates to IE and Office to Windows which is illegal. In the AARD case, they disabled it really close to production by changing one byte in the data segment to minimise the risk. So technically it was possible - the code worked in Beta, but someone decided that the legal risk was too great for the release version.
There is some evidence that Microsoft developers are aware of these sorts of legal issues
http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2007/02
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
http://www.google.com/trends?q=dog%2C+cat&ctab=0&
This is more shocking, dogs and cats living together!! (but dogs still more popular)
How we know is more important than what we know.
If they used the "controversial" non-blockable Chinese serials for Windows, they didn't have much work to do at all.
The fact is; these serials don't need further cracking, just installing with them is enough.
HCQ9D-TVCWX-X9QRG-J4B2Y-GR2TT
There we go; no more hassles..
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.
The site where the video is posted is annoying and crappy. Here is a torrent for the video. http://www.mininova.org/get/756266.
Do you actually think that most people who use pirated software would use open source if only "genuine Windows" were available?
Most people I know who pirate Windows aren't anti-Microsoft or even violently cheap. Instead, such "crimes" are usually crimes of opportunity: someone at school or the office offers to let them borrow their Windows disk, or hands out cracked CDs because it amuses them. It's obviously cheaper, so of course they'll use the illegal disk. But if such a thing weren't available, most people will bite the bullet and pay for Windows because it's what they're comfortable with.
"Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." -Richard Feynman
err.. this is rather embarrassing, I wanted to install Linux but I installed genuine windows! fuck.
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
Apple wants your soul.
Well, I guess Linux is finally ready for the desktop - certified by Microsoft no less.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
My Ubuntu installation would feel violated if it was made to be validated as a Microsoft Genuine operating system. Would probably reformat itself in protest.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France