When Software Leaks (and What Really Goes Down)

Bryant writes "The Windows community is somewhat notorious for leaks from upcoming versions of Windows (obligatory link to this guy since that's most of what he does), and while the official PR word from Microsoft and many other companies with regards to leaks is a simple 'no comment,' no one has really gotten a candid, inside look at the various things that go down when word, screenshots, or builds of upcoming software leak. I managed to get some time with a senior Microsoft employee for the sake of discussing leaks, and the conclusions reached (leaks heavily affect communication, not so much the product schedule) as well as what these guys actually have to deal with whenever someone leaks a build, breaks an embargo, etc. may actually be a surprise given what most companies try to instill in the public mind."

Comments

Re:They are effective even if they aren't quality

[poofmeisterp]

Aww, I ticked off a M$-brainwashed fan. What a bummer. *tears tears more tears*

LOL

Re:They are effective even if they aren't quality

[earlymon]

Microsoft is very effective at marketing in a fashion that gets many people interested in their products.

Windows 7 Party

Bill and Jerry in the shoe store

Now, you'll excuse me while I brush the floor off of my shoulder - evidently stuck there from the fact that I'm ROTFLMAO.

But then again, I wonder - how has Microsoft's most successful marketing worked? Ah - here it is:

Microsoft forces DELL to deliver Windows

Mr. ForeDecker? A Windows 7 change MS needs

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm a relatively senior development manager in Windows" - by Foredecker (161844) * on Sunday October 25, @04:03PM (#29866759) Homepage Journal

GOOD: Then, you're JUST THE MAN I'D LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION OF!

I say that, because nobody answered me on it here (your companies' own "Engineering Windows 7" blog no less):

----

Welcome to our blog dedicated to the engineering of Microsoft Windows 7

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx

----

QUESTION:

Why was the ability to use 0 as a "blocking IP address" removed from HOSTS files, from 12/09/2008 onwards, in VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & Windows 7 it is this way also!

(& it IS completely legit to use 0, & faster + MORE EFFICIENT - Windows 2000, pre Service Pack #4 couldn't use it, but from then on it could, & Windows XP + Server 2003 always could, so, that is PROOF you guys added it in, & are now pulling it... why? Doing so, affects effciency of it adversely... read on!)

First of all, on "legit IP address" using 0 - because when you ping a "zero blocked" site you get back 0.0.0.0 on Windows 2000/XP/Serer 2003.

Secondly, using that in a HOSTS file to protect one's self from KNOWN 'bad sites &/or botnet command & control servers for instance, you cannot get to them (& thus you are safe from them via this practice)

Third & MOST importantly?

When you perform the File I/O Open/Read/Close cycle on a LARGE HOSTS file (with these types of entries for protection)? Loading said file is FAR faster... have your coders try this themselves, by loading a large HOSTS files into a listbox & timing it using multimedia hi-resolution timers you register with the system.

It's inefficient to use 127.0.0.1 (the "loopback adapter" address, because it IS larger by 8 bytes per line & does do a "loopback operation", which 0 &/.or 0.0.0.0 do not).

Also, "technically speaking"? Well, the DNS cache perform a DECIMAL to HEXADECIMAL conversion on 0.0.0.0, and on 127.0.0.1... & 0? It doesn't NEED THAT, period. (because 0-9 in decimal are 0-9 in hex too).

That's also more efficient by using 0... period!

But, the most important part is, that the SMALLER THE FILE IS, the faster it loads from DISK into RAM, period. Using 0 makes it smaller, per line during reads (until the trailer record cr+lf or null is hit, then next line is read), & thus faster, per line.

In a HOSTS like I use, with 660,000 entries in it of KNOWN bad malscripted sites &/or botnet command & control servers? It keeps me safe, but is SLOWER using the longer IP addresses, per line.

E.G.-> 127.0.0.1 makes my HOSTS file bloat to 22++mb in size... using the next least inefficient entry of 0.0.0.0 makes it 18++mb in size! Using 0, by way of comparison? ONLY 14mb in size... a 30% improvement!

The physics of this 'back me up', & I would like to know if you have enough "PULL" to mention this to the team that handles the IP stack!

Thanks!

APK

P.S.=> You may also wish to read that blog there, because I noted even more here (rootkit.com is a site where 'hacker/cracker' types & researchers "hang out", & they said THIS about your new single part "WFP" base filtering engine for protection (no longer uses RDR20.DLL which Windows 2000 uses as a LSP, but it does use the same one XP/Server 2003 does for an LSP) but, if you want more details on this & why it's "worse" possibly, per rootkit.com?

http://www.rootkit.com/newsread.php?newsid=952

PERTINENT EXCERPT/QUOTE:

"BTW, the firewalls based on NDIS v6, which was introduced in Windows Vista, are much easier to unhook and bypass."

That was a DIRECT QUOTE from said URL I just posted from rootkit.com ...

Read more at the IBM site for details & DO please get back to us, or me, @ apk4776239@hotmail.com

http:

Re:I always had the impression

[commodore64_love]

>>>secrete leak

I try to convince my wife to let me secrete at least once a week, but keep my leaks to a minimum.