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!
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
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.
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.
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.
God is imaginary
Genuine Advantage wasn't part of the agreement I signed. It didn't exist.
Why is it now necessary for my computer to stay up to date?
Why do you think that's ok?
Why?
--Jimmy
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.
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.
Which reminds me of this comic strip.
"I guess they are saying your computer is as up to date as they are going to make it without WGA.
In essence, they terminated your support for updates and you renewed it by doing the WGA thing. And no, I am not saying it is right. But even if you purchase the full version, you only get so much free support. the rest is basically MS acting as if they are doing you a favor. I don't remember anything in the license or on the box about updates being provided.
They really don't have a choice - either FIX the defective OS via patches or face a class-action suit for selling a grolssly defective product. Don't kid yourself - the only person who benefits from Microsoft's actions is Microsoft. Limited warranties don't add to your rights, they take away from them. Most jurisdictions have laws that state that a purchase has to be useful for its intended purpose for a reasonable amount of time. 20 seconds between connecting to the net and getting p0wned is not "reasonable" - especially when there are free OS available that don't have these defects.
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!
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.
What would Lemmy do?
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